Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Standing Orders

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That Standing Order 39 (Deposit of copies of bills at Treasury and other public departments, etc.) relative to Private Business be amended in line 28 by leaving out the word "or" and after the word "Ghana" inserting the words "or the Federation of Malaya".
The object of the Amendment is to bring the Standing Order up to date by the inclusion of the Federation of Malaya in the Standing Order.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means a question on this Amendment? As the Standing Orders were printed in 1956—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unopposed Private Business. If the hon. and gallant Member desires to oppose it, I shall have to postpone it.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not wish to oppose at all, but I wish for an explanation. I wish to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means if he is aware that the Standing Orders as printed do not at the moment include the word "Ghana," but this Amendment proposes to leave out the word "Ghana". I wonder if the Chairman of Ways and Means could explain.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: This year on 28th March an Amendment was agreed to by the House to put "Ghana" in. Since then Standing Orders have not been reprinted and therefore it is not in, but ought to be put in by hon. Members themselves in manuscript.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Operations, Egypt (Commander-in-Chief's Despatch)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the unpreparedness for action of the Army in the operations in Egypt as stated in the despatch of the Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): I do not accept the right hon. Member's interpretation of the despatch. I have nothing to add to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 13th and 20th November.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to that portion of Part 4 of the Commander-in-Chief's despatch which states that the Royal Air Force was the most easily prepared for action, and does he accept by implication that that seems to say that the Army was not so prepared for action?

Mr. Hare: As I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, I do not accept the implications he gives to this. I have already explained that of course we are studying the whole operation carefully and will take advantage of any lessons we can learn from it.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at some future time, in answer to a Question put in this House, to give the House some information as to the lessons he and his advisers have learned from the operation as outlined in the despatch?

Mr. Hare: I will consider what the right hon. Member has said. I think probably the Army Estimates would be the appropriate time.

Army News Service and Forcereuter

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Army-owned publications receive the news and photographic service of the official Army News Service, Holloway Road, London, N.1,


and at Forcereuter; and what is the basis of relationship between such publications and the news services referred to.

Mr. John Hare: The Army News Service sends material to four Army papers, all overseas. A fifth paper is published mainly for Gurkha troops and makes little use of the service. Only one paper is supplied with news by Forcereuter. Besides these newspapers, some local garrison broadsheets are published at stations abroad and have access to the news service. The papers are produced by a duplicating process and do not publish photographs. Their relationship with the Army News Service is that all form part of the Army Educational Services.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend reviewed these arrangements recently? Can he give the House an assurance that the expenditure involved is still considered by his Department to be strictly necessary?

Mr. Hare: Yes, but I should prefer to deal with that in answering Question No. 5, which is about the same subject.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War how many commercially-owned newspapers receive the benefit of the Army News Service and Forcereuter; what such commercially-owned newspapers pay to the War Office for the services received; what is the annual income; when the rates were last revised; what rates are charged for such services: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: Seventeen commercially-owned newspapers, all overseas, receive material from the Army News Service and Forcereuter. It is supplied without charge, in return for the service rendered by those newspapers in printing home news of particular interest to the British Forces.

Mr. Nabarro: Is this basis strictly reciprocal, or can my right hon. Friend say whether perhaps the Army News Service sends out more information than it receives from commercial bodies at home or overseas?

Mr. Hare: If we did not have this agreement with these commercially-owned newspapers we should not be able to get printed a large amount of news of considerable interest to our Forces

overseas. This is a very economical way of cutting down the number of our own newspapers and at the same time giving the information available to them which is of interest to our soldiers and other Servicemen overseas.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War the total annual cost carried on the War Department Vote, or otherwise borne directly or indirectly by Her Majesty's Treasury, in respect of the Army News Service and Forcereuter, having regard to staff salaries paid in the Army News Service, the rent of the Holloway Road, London, N.1 premises, fees payable to Fleet Street picture agencies, payments to Reuter's Agency, and others; how many persons are employed by the Army News Service and Forcereuter; what fluctuations have taken place in the extent of this staff during the last few years; and whether he will make a statement as to future policy for operating the Army News Service and Forcereuter.

Mr. John Hare: The annual cost is about £10,000, excluding our payments to Reuter's Agency, which it would not be customary to disclose. The unit has a staff of six, two of whom work in Forcereuter. These numbers have not fluctuated during the last few years. I consider that this service is of value to our Forces abroad.

Surplus Stocks and Equipment (Disposal)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an estimate of the stocks and equipment in his Department which are surplus to requirements, and the value of this material; and what steps he is taking for its disposal.

Mr. John Hare: In the United Kingdom, there are about 400,000 tons of equipment and 15,000 vehicles at present declared surplus. At a rough estimate, the disposal value is £10 million. Disposal is being arranged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply in the usual way. About 40,000 tons of surplus equipment in our depots overseas is in course of disposal by the local military authorities.

Mr. Shinwell: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but is it not possible to improve on that


result by taking this business out of the hands of the Ministry of Supply? Is there not a great deal of dilatoriness on the part of the Ministry of Supply in disposing of surplus goods? What is the point of having the surplus goods? Are they not absorbing accommodation and manpower and, therefore, involving expenditure; and is that desirable?

Mr. Hare: That has not been my experience in dealing with the Ministry of Supply, but if I give the right hon. Gentleman this information I think it will help him in getting the answer that I think he wants. We actually received about £6·2 million from sales in this country last year, and in the current year we expect to receive about £12 million. So, in fact, the rate of disposal is considerably higher this year than it was last.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not suppose that it is possible for the Minister to say what expenditure is incurred by the Ministry of Supply in the disposal of these goods?

Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question to the Ministry of Supply on that.

Base Workshops, Woolwich (Closure)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War why he is closing down 37 Base Workshops, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Woolwich; and where he is transferring the work previously done by this unit.

Mr. John Hare: The closure is due to a general reduction in repair work as the reorganisation of the Army proceeds. The work remaining will be distributed among other base workshops.

Mr. Mayhew: What action is the Secretary of State taking, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, to assist those displaced to get alternative work?

Mr. Hare: The normal redundancy procedure will operate, and we shall, of course, do everything that we can to help the staff concerned.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in common with other Service Ministries, his Department is making these cuts piecemeal? Can he say whether he has been given an instruction by the Minister of Defence not to show the full extent of the economies

being made by showing them in one statement at the proper time?

Mr. Hare: No, I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is inevitable for these establishments to run down as the size of the Service runs down. We are trying to give people proper and adequate notice, and shall continue to do so, and shall certainly do all we can to place the staffs concerned.

Scottish Regiments (Recruitment)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many soldiers were recruited for the various Scottish regiments in November;
(2) how many recruits enlisted in November in the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Highland Light Infantry, as compared with November, 1956.

Mr. John Hare: I regret that these figures are not yet available.

Mr. Hughes: Surely there is something wrong with the War Office when it cannot count the number of soldiers who offer to join?

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait very long for these figures to be available. I shall certainly endeavour to see that he gets them; I will send them to him during the Recess.

Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the November recruiting figures will be published at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Hare: Yes, they will be published at the normal time.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister agree that the little dispute about kilts or trews is likely to militate against recruiting in Scotland?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that it will bring about what I would call any significant change.

Explosions, Medlyn Moor and Carnkie

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of explosion mishaps at Medlyn Moor, Wendron, on 7th September, 1955, and at Carnkie, Camborne-Redruth, on 1st December, 1957, both in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency of Cornwall, he will arrange for similar operations by


the Royal Engineers to be suspended pending the results of the investigation now being conducted into the Carnkie incident.

Mr. John Hare: No, Sir. Although the damage at Carnkie is believed to have been caused by a freak effect of the explosion, a full technical inquiry has been arranged. This will take several months. There is no evidence at present that the Regulations require amendment, and I am not prepared to suspend all similar operations during the period of the inquiry.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that his reply will cause great consternation in West Cornwall, because there has already been great concern about both incidents, particularly that at Carnkie, where it was really extremely lucky that no casualties occurred?

Mr. Hare: As I say, this was a freak explosion but, even so, we are having a special inquiry made into it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the fears of people in that part of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Stamps (Commemorative Issues)

Mr. Parker: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will issue a commemorative issue of postage stamps for the bi-centenary of the birth of Robert Burns on 25th January, 1959; and if he will take similar opportunities of making known to the British public their creative artists and inventors.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): No, Sir. The hon. Member's suggestion would mean a fundamental departure from the traditional stamp policy of this country, which I am not prepared to adopt.

Mr. Parker: Is it not about time that we changed this Victorian tradition, and adopted some of the more interesting designs used in other parts of the Commonwealth, or in countries like France?

Mr. Marples: Requests for stamps for individuals have been resisted in the past on two grounds; first of all, that it would be unseemly to couple the portrait of an individual with that of a reigning Monarch, and secondly, that the number

of people with claims to be remembered in this country is so great that it would be very invidious to choose between them.

Captain Pilkington: Are there not any better English poets?

Mr. Rankin: No.

Mr. Marples: There are many schools of thought that would give different answers to that question.

Mr. Shinwell: How does the Postmaster-General know that the Monarch would think it unseemly to be associated with the great Scottish poet, Robert Burns? Does he know anything of the work of Robert Burns—its art, its elegance and its beauty—and does not he think that outstanding personalities of this kind ought to be commemorated in some way, and that this is a very desirable form?

Mr. Marples: What I have said in no way denigrates the poetry of Robert Burns, some of which I have read, and some of which I have tried to read but, I regret to say, have not been so successful, because I am not able to understand the niceties as hon. Members from Scotland can. But the main thing is that there are so many poets—Wordsworth, Shelley, Shakespeare, Keats for example—that it would be invidious for the Post Office to have to choose between their merits.

Saturdays and Bank Holidays (Reduced Services)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Postmaster-General what saving he expects to make by reducing the number of deliveries and collections on Saturday, dispensing with deliveries on Easter Monday, Whit Monday and August Bank Holiday, and closing nearly all post offices on Bank Holidays.

Mr. Marples: About £150,000 per annum.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these measures very seriously affect those places which are very crowded during the holiday seasons, when postal services are more, and not less, necessary? Will he look into this again?

Mr. Marples: I am afraid not, because the Priestley Royal Commission has made


two recommendations; first that the pay, and secondly, that the conditions, should be broadly comparable with those in outside industry. This measure was taken, not only for the saving of pay but also to bring conditions of postmen up to those of outside industry.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this innovation will cause people great difficulty in periods of crisis, when they want to send telegrams? Can he indicate how he proposes to deal with that position?

Mr. Marples: The Question on the Order Paper relates to the number of collections and deliveries on Saturdays and Bank Holidays, but this particular measure allows most postmen to go off duty on Saturdays two or three hours earlier. That facility exists in outside industry, and I should have thought that, on the whole, the House would have welcomed it.

Catalogues and Printed Papers

Mr. Hurd: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent he has had cause, since the increase in inland postal charges, to refuse to handle catalogues and other printed papers posted abroad, on the ground that this has been done with the object of evading payment of the higher rate of inland postage.

Mr. Marples: No instances of this kind have so far come to notice; if they did, I have the powers to deal with them and should, of course, use them.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend able to keep a check on the posting of printed matter—catalogues and so on—in Holland so that he will know whether this is becoming a major problem, in order to save his own revenue and to keep our own printing industry fully employed?

Mr. Marples: We have that consideration very much in mind and we are looking at it at the moment.

Printed Matter (Private Collection)

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General what requests he has received from companies that a special postal rate should operate for printed matter provided it is collected privately, delivered to the sorting office privately,

and sent out at a time convenient to his Department; and what his decision is thereon.

Mr. Marples: I have received such a request from the Bulk Mail Users Association, which I understand includes a number of business companies. This is one of several suggestions which have been made to us recently about the postal services, and which we are considering. But I think it only fair to say that in present circumstances I can hold out no prospect of adopting any proposal which would involve us in loss of revenue.

Mr. Hobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint the House when he has made his final decision on this hardy annual?

Mr. Marples: I think the Association has asked to see Post Office officials and I would rather wait until the outcome of those discussions before I say anything.

Lettercards

Mr. Hurd: asked the Postmaster-General why lettercards were not obtainable at Reading main Post Office on 12th December; and if he will give an assurance that he will continue this device.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry that exceptionally heavy demands have caused a temporary shortage of lettercards at some offices. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of withdrawing them from sale.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Hours of Broadcasting

Sir S. Summers: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will increase the number of hours per day during which television may be shown so that commercial rather than statutory considerations may be the limiting factor in giving service to the public.

Mr. Marples: At present, I am not contemplating any change in the maximum hours for television, which are based on an agreement with the British Broad casting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority.

Sir S. Summers: Is the Minister aware mat there are a number of minority groups of viewers, particularly shift


workers, who are not able to see the television programmes owing to the restriction of times? Is he further aware that I.T.V. is eager to serve the public? Why should it be restricted by any statutory limitation from giving the proper service to the public?

Mr. Marples: I have not so far had a communication from the I.T.A. asking to be allowed to increase the hours, but it is not only a question of the quantity of the programmes. The general quality and balance has also to be borne in mind.

Mr. Wade: Does not the Postmaster-General think it is an undesirable principle to allow the number of hours of television programmes to be dependent on the amount of advertising available?

Mr. Marples: The present number of hours has been agreed with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., and no evidence has been produced to me that the number of hours should be altered at the moment. If the evidence is forthcoming, I should like to look at it.

Low-Power Television Transmitter (Field Trials)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made in the development of a low-power television transmitter to serve areas now getting bad reception.

Mr. Marples: The British Broadcasting Corporation hope that the prototype of a low-power unattended transmitter will be ready for field trials early in the New Year. Amongst other things, these trials will show the kind of areas for which this equipment is likely to be suitable.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that that reply will give very great satisfaction in West Cornwall in particular, in some parts of which reception is now very bad?

Western Isles

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General when he intends to make a full statement, covering the technical, financial and social aspects of the problems involved, regarding the repeated rejection of requests for television service for South Uist and the rest of the Western Isles.

Mr. Marples: I can only inform the hon. Member that owing to the technical difficulties and the consequent high cost involved, the British Broadcasting Corporation can hold out no early hope of providing service to these islands.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that those who ought to know, the technical experts in certain Departments, felt that it was practicable and, indeed, absolutely necessary to provide a television service from Northern Ireland to a few hundred troops stationed temporarily in South Uist for the purpose of the rocket range, how can the right hon. Gentleman reasonably justify his refusal to provide it for a permanent population of over 40,000 people?

Mr. Marples: One of the main difficulties in the Highlands is the technical difficulty arising from the mountainous nature of the area. Not only that, but there is the financial expenditure involved. The B.B.C. has an annual budget and it decides how to spend that money to the best of its ability.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Would not the Postmaster-General regard the provision of a television service for these islands as a social service? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cables from the mainland to all these islands and that it would be easy, as these cables have to be renewed now and then, to lay one to provide a television service?

Mr. Marples: The difficulty is not only that of a cable. It involves the line of sight between the aerial which transmits and the aerial which receives.

Mr. MacMillan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a direct line with no interference between Northern Ireland and the Western Islands—not the Highlands—with no mountain or contour difficulties? How can the right hon. Gentleman manage to produce all these technical difficulties out of a hat? Is it not the case that, when the rocket range was contemplated, it was intended to provide a full television service from Londonderry under the umbrella of defence expenditure?

Mr. Marples: The B.B.C. has an annual allocation of money and it has to decide how to use it to the best advantage.

Mr. MacMillan: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory and appalling nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Political Broadcasts (Directions)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what notices he has issued to the Independent Television Authority under Section 9, subsection (2) of the Television Act, 1954, concerning matters of a political nature.

Mr. Marples: The only direction under this Section was that about the "14-day rule" which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, has been suspended for an indefinite period.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that transmissions of political broadcasts have been indulged in by Granada, particularly in the Manchester area, during the recent by-election? Does not he think that in view of the use of the regional programmes for television transmissions during by-elections, the B.B.C. ought to be released from the restrictions now imposed upon it, and that the three political parties, together with the B.B.C., I.T.A. and the Postmaster-General, should look at this problem anew so that we may have the maximum use, on an agreed basis, of the regional programmes in relation to by-elections?

Mr. Marples: I shall have to consider that long supplementary at leisure. If I remember the recent broadcast, it was at Garston where each candidate said that he would win, and the Tory candidate was the only one who was correct in his prophecy.

Electrical Interference (Regulations)

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General how many Regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to deal with electrical interference are now in operation; and what steps are taken to enforce them.

Mr. Marples: Three sets of Regulations are now in operation. I am sending the hon. Member copies. They may be enforced in individual cases by notices served by me under Sections 11 and 12 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949.

Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable interference to very high frequency wireless sets from the emission of electromagnetic energy from motor cars and other electrical equipment, including television sets? What is the purpose of inviting people to have V.H.F. sets in what are termed "mush" areas, as well as in normal areas not subject to interference? Should not he do something about it?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars of any area where this is happening, I will have the matter looked into. The real difficulty is that the Regulations which were made apply only to new motor cars and so on after June, 1953. It would be very difficult to examine every old motor car to see whether or not it interferes with wireless reception. That is the major difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Trunk Calls, Keighley

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Postmaster-General if the City of Leeds is included in the radius for cheap trunk calls from Keighley under the new proposals announced in Parliament last month.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why towns and villages much further away from Keighley than the City of Leeds are to be granted this cheap rate for trunk calls? Why is Leeds left out—because of its large population?

Mr. Marples: Whatever the size of the local call area, which has recently been greatly increased, and whichever way it is drawn, there is bound to be some part just outside, and as the average area has increased from 80 square miles to 900 square miles, I think that on the whole it was a very beneficial move.

Subscribers, Scotland

Mr. Ross: asked the Postmaster-General how many telephone subscribers in Scotland have given up their telephones since the last charges and rental increases were announced; and how many of these were in respect of business premises.

Mr. Marples: The figures are 13,567 and 1,651 respectively. Not all of these are attributed to the increased charges since over a similar period prior to the announcement on 18th July the corresponding figures were 5,740 and 1,640. Since that date over 12,000 new telephones have been installed in Scotland.

Reading and Newbury

Mr. Hurd: asked the Postmaster-General how many new subscribers have been connected to the telephone in the Reading and Newbury districts in the past year; how many subscribers gave up the telephone; and how many applicants are waiting for telephone installation.

Mr. Marples: For Reading the figures are 925, 284 and 610, and for Newbury 225, 121 and 74.

Mr. Hurd: Those figures sound pretty satisfactory. Is my right hon. Friend able to say how long it is likely to be before he can catch up with the backlog of applications for connection to the telephone service in these areas?

Mr. Marples: Of the outstanding applications in Reading, nearly two-thirds are in course of provision and the remainder are waiting for line plant. In Newbury half the applications are in course of provision and the others are waiting for lines. In the two areas combined there has been a reduction of 220 in the outstanding applications in the last twelve months.

Kiosk, Long Lawford

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to have a telephone kiosk erected in the new council housing estate at Long Law-ford.

Mr. Marples: I would like to do this but cannot promise to provide a new kiosk quickly, because we have to lay new cables as well. The existing kiosk at Long Lawford is within half a mile of the estate.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Wimpey who built on the site, and who are now shortly leaving this local housing estate, had a telephone installed at their office? Could he use that cable for a new kiosk on the estate?

Mr. Marples: I am told that that will not be free until the end of 1958, and we will consider it then.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Signs

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the small number of horse riders, he will discourage the continued use of the terms "near side" and "off side' in official notices and publications.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): No, Sir. I do not think official action is warranted.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not uncommon to find notices directing traffic in particular places to keep to the "near side" and "off side" lanes, and will not he agree that there are many people who have cause to consider whether they have to go right or left? Would not any action that would simplify and standardise road signs be conducive to road safety?

Mr. Nugent: I do not think this causes serious confusion. It would be a pity to lose the traditional terms.

Suburban Stations (Car Parks)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will publish in HANSARD the detailed items of his request to the British Transport Commission in relation to the provision of car parks around suburban stations.

Mr. Nugent: Our requests to the British Transport Commission to provide more car parks around suburban stations have been in general terms. I am glad to say that considerable progress has been made by the Commission and that it is now actively considering further measures.

Mrs. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission has recently sold to a private building developer land which was designated as a car park adjoining Bounds Green underground station, despite the fact that cars are parked on both sides of the adjoining road and despite the increasing need for


car parking space in outer London? In view of this, would he discuss with the Commission the possibility of its consulting with himself, with the police and with the appropriate local authorities before disposing of any further land suitable for car parks in the London area?

Mr. Nugent: I thank the hon. Lady for letting us know of this incident. I find that, in fact, the agreement to sell this plot of land was made as far back as April, 1955, before we started to press the Commission to develop these car parks for underground stations. I should say, to the credit of the Commission, that it has made good progress in recent years, having raised the car parking space from 1,280 to over 1,900 spaces since 1955, and it has under consideration and in hand a number of other schemes which will finally raise the figure to about 2,500. It will be seen that the Commission is making good progress, and we are continuing to press the matter upon it.

Mr. Slater: Can the Minister say what consultation his Department has with the municipal and local authorities about the setting up of car parks throughout the country? Is the matter just left to local authorities to act on their own initiative without any form of consultation with his Department about recommendations?

Mr. Nugent: The provision of car parks in towns other than the Metropolis is the direct responsibility of local authorities, and they do consult us, naturally, if they are considering doing anything; but it is for them to initiate proposals.

Driving Licences (Issue)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in the interests of economy of labour, he will now arrange for the issue of three-year licences to be available to everyone and not merely to those whose names begin with the letters A to F.

Mr. Nugent: Immediate issue of three-year licences to all holders would cause every third year to be a peak year for renewals, involving recruitment of additional staff. To avoid this, the issue of three-year driving licences is being spread over three years. Three-year driving licences are now issued to all drivers, irrespective of surname, who pass the test for the first time.

Mr. Tilney: Would my hon. Friend took at this matter again? If it is a peak period, is there any reason why temporary labour should not be recruited to meet it, and does not this action merely create unnecessary work for two years?

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. I think that the way in which we are doing it will spread the work out better.

Mr. Strauss: Would not it obviate the difficulty if some licences were issued for two years instead of there being some issued for one and some for three?

Mr. Nugent: I think that that would cause further confusion. I think that the present arrangement is a quite reasonable one. We have worked for many years on a one year basis, and it will not do any harm to go on for another two years.

Sir S. Summers: Will my hon. Friend explain why it takes longer and requires more staff to issue a licence for three years as compared with a licence for one?

Mr. Nugent: I think that my hon. Friend has not followed my reply. If all the licences for three years had to be issued every third year, that would obviously require more staff.

Provisional Licences and Driving Tests

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he intends to make regulations to bring into effect Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, so as to limit the number of provisional licences that a learner driver may hold without submitting to a test.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Section 18 (2) of the Act, which extends the period of duration of a provisional licence from three to six months, will be brought into force on 1st March, 1958; I am in consultation with interested bodies in regard to the fee to be charged for the new licence.
I am considering, in the light of the situation in regard to driving tests, when to introduce the provisions of Section 18 (1).

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the ease the other day in which a judge described as very unsatisfactory the fact that a defendant involved in an accident had had several provisional licences over several years; and will he, in the interests of road safety, bring in this provision as soon as possible to cut down the period during which provisional licences can be given?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that my hon. Friend will know that Section 18 (I) of the Act, which I intend to bring into force, does meet that case to some extent.

Mr. Rankin: Could the Minister say whether, when driving licences are being issued, any attempt is made to assess the intelligence quotient of recipients?

Mr. Watkinson: The Question deals with provisional licences, not driving licences.

Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness) Regulations

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness) Regulations under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, will be issued; and to what extent such revised Regulations will be in accordance with the last draft of the proposed regulations submitted to the road passenger transport associations last year.

Mr. Watkinson: Following the comments made on the last draft, I have in mind to make some changes in the Regulations.
I am also considering including amendments to facilitate the use of utility vehicles as rural buses. I shall issue the consolidated Regulations as soon as possible.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the commercial motor show will be held next September and that bus building firms wish to finalise their designs? If the issue of these Regulations is held up by having to make Regulations for the twelve-seater small bus, perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider issuing the main Regulations ahead of the others?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly consider that, but I hope now to issue the consolidated Regulations quite quickly.

Mill Road Tunnel, Rugby

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the traffic congestion that occurs in the Mill Road Tunnel below the British Railways Midland Region Station, Rugby, when the workers of the British Thomson-Houston Company and Thomas Hunters Limited are using that tunnel by bus, car, cycle or on foot at peak hours when going to or leaving these factories; and whether he will institute an inquiry with all the interested parties including workers and management and the borough council.

Mr. Nugent: This is a matter for the Corporation of Rugby, which is responsible for this unclassified road.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that thousands of workers pour out at different shift times from these works, that the width of this tunnel is 12 feet 5 inches in places and that the pathway is 18 inches wide? Would he consider holding an inquiry at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Nugent: This really is a matter for the Corporation of Rugby. It is an unclassified road, and it is entirely the Corporation's responsibility.

Drivers (Hours of Work)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the increasing infringement of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in regard to hours of work and Section 16 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, concerning the keeping of drivers' records, what additional action he is taking to ensure a better observance of these statutory requirements.

Mr. Watkinson: I am trying to recruit more driving and traffic examiners so that more can be employed on the enforcement of these statutory provisions.

Mr. Ernest Davies: While welcoming that reply, may I ask if the Minister is aware of the very grave increase in these offences, and that evidence of them appears weekly in the commercial Press? Is he also aware that even the Road Haulage Association has recently drawn attention to the increases in the breach of the law in these respects? Will the Minister do everything in his power to


see that this breaking of the law, which is due to excessive competition, is brought to an end as soon as possible?

Mr. Watkinson: In this respect, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The present staff of driving and traffic examiners is 857, and we are hoping to increase it soon to 911, which will enable a much greater amount of enforcement to be carried out.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that only about one hundred of these examiners are engaged on enforcement work, and does the Minister consider that that number will be enough to cope with over a million vehicles on the roads?

Mr. Watkinson: No, I do not; but when we get over the bulge in the driving tests, which I hope we shall be able to do very soon, a very much larger proportion of examiners will be used on enforcement.

New Private Cars (Registrations)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of new private car registrations made by firms and by private individuals, respectively, during the latest 12-month period.

Mr. Nugent: The number of new private cars registered during the 12 months ended 31st October, 1957, was 388,188. I cannot say how many of these were registered by firms or private individuals.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I should very much like to have that information, if he could get it?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that it is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Proposed Victoria Tube

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it is proposed to start the construction of the new Victoria tube linking North-East London with Victoria and South-West London, Route C.

Mr. Nugent: Because the project raises difficult financial problems and the capital which is available to the British Transport Commission can be more

advantageously used for their modernisation programme, no decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Albu: Does not the Minister agree with the recent remarks of the Chairman of the Commission, that the only way to solve the traffic problem of London is to construct this new tube, and would it not provide a very considerable economic saving in the City of London and the Greater London area as a whole if this tube were constructed? Further, is it not the fact that these tubes cannot be constructed without capital subsidy from the Government?

Mr. Nugent: We are making very large capital sums available to the Commission to proceed with its modernisation. This scheme would cost an additional £55½ million, and it is computed to make a loss in any event. Therefore, it has to take its turn with other matters which may have greater priority.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Minister look at this with a little more imagination? Is it not a fact that it would bring considerably more relief to the centre of London than the construction of new roads, and would it not, therefore, be quite reasonable to consider financing this scheme in the same way as roads are financed and built, then handing the tube over to the London Transport Executive to operate?

Mr. Nugent: I agree that it would assist in moving passengers about in London, but we must look at it in the context of what would be the greater benefit which we should derive from either this scheme or one of the other railway modernisation schemes all about the country.

Capital Investment Programme

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation which of the British Railways modernisation schemes will be postponed or delayed in completion as a result of the restrictions placed on its capital investment programme.

Mr. Watkinson: It will not now be possible to accelerate by as much as was hoped the programmes for main line diesel locomotives, for some rolling stock and for station improvements. The programme for the fitting of continuous


brakes to some mineral wagons has also had to be slowed down. The Commission still hopes, however, that by maintaining and if necessary accelerating its plans in subsequent years, it will be able to complete the programme by the published date.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the Government's record in regard to capital investment on the railways, what chance does the Minister think the Commission will have of accelerating this scheme after 1957, for 1958 and 1959? Is it not a fact that the statement now made by the Minister is in contradiction of the assurance he gave on 30th October, when he said that it was not then necessary to depart from the Command Paper "Proposals for the Railways", that is, the modernisation plan?

Mr. Watkinson: That does not seem to me to come very well from a member of a party which has played politics with the railways, without bothering to modernise them. At least, this Government have devoted very large sums of money to the improvement of the railways, and over the next two years we are giving the Commission £170 million each year.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that the Government have cut down on the railway modernisation programme, and that that is endangering the possibility of the British Transport Commission paying its way by 1961, as was forecast in this Command Paper?

Mr. Watkinson: As I have just said, the Commission has advised me that it hopes to be able to complete the programme by the published date, and that is what I said in my Answer.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the expenditure on its railway modernisation programme that had been planned for each of the years 1958 and 1959 by the British Transport Commission immediately prior to the restriction on capital expenditure for all the Commission's undertakings to £170 million a year.

Mr. Watkinson: The planned programme against which restrictions were made included £151 million for railway investment in 1958 and £148 million in 1959.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not this evidence of the effect of cutting down on this programme, and does the Minister really believe that if the Government cut down the programme, it will be possible for the Commission to fulfil its estimate? Is it not a very short-sighted policy, in view of the very large deficit which is now accumulating?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think this is the case. I think the railways have to play their part in the national scheme of things, like everybody else, and I am quite satisfied that if they get the utmost value out of the present capital investment programme, as I am quite sure they will, we shall complete the programme as we planned.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not a fact that the railway modernisation programme is progressing very well, and that, in some instances, it is ahead of schedule?

Mr. Watkinson: In a great many instances, it is ahead of schedule.

Mr. Strauss: May I ask the Minister whether, in fact, in spite of the assurances and the hopes which he has expressed, the cut in capital expenditure on the railway modernisation plan has not done enormous damage and caused enormous retardation to the whole scheme? Is it not a fact that any talk of being able to overtake that in subsequent years is really not accepted by anybody who knows what is really happening?

Mr. Watkinson: I think the right hon. Gentleman should keep a sense of proportion. The facts are that what the Commission wanted to do would cost roughly £180 million each year and what we are giving it is £170 million a year. If it cannot make do with £170 million, I think it will be lacking a sense of proportion about its capital expenditure.

Workshops, Leeds (Repair)

Mr. Healey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects the repairs to the railway workshops at Neville Hill, Leeds, to be completed.

Mr. Watkinson: This is entirely a matter within the responsibility of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Healey: Is the Minister aware that working conditions in these workshops are absolutely intolerable? Plans for repairing them were first drawn up in 1947. Will he use his own powers to try to get the Transport Commission to advance a decision in regard to this matter?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the right way of dealing with this matter is either for the hon. Member to make his own representations to the Commission or for him to draw the matter to my attention—which he has done—and for me to see what I can do to draw it to the Commission's attention.

Mr. D. Jones: Is this what the Minister meant when he told the Trades Union Congress on 9th July that the introduction of a Bill to implement the Gowers Report was delayed by the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Watkinson: That has nothing to do with the case at all. The Commission is spending very large sums of money in improving amenities for its workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMER PRIME MINISTERS (STATUES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister, in view of his Motion that a statue be made of the late Earl Balfour, what steps he is taking to honour the memory of other Prime Ministers who have now been dead for 10 years.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no suggestions before him at present. I think that in these matters we have to be guided by what we feel to be the wishes of the House.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether there is any system of priorities? Is the only qualification for an ex-Prime Minister to have a statue that he must have been dead for ten years? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the chances of the present Prime Minister getting into the crypt?

Mr. Butler: I have ascertained that there are six Prime Ministers who have no statue, and so we have to look at them first before we look at any others.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Street Lighting

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now state what progress has been made on his consultations with the associations of local authorities about the powers and responsibilities of urban and county authorities in relation to street lighting.

Mr. Nugent: No consultations are taking place with the associations of local authorities on this subject.

Mr. Moyle: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is about time such consultations took place with local authorities in order to get something like tidy administration in this matter? Could not his right hon. Friend consider giving some encouragement to local authorities so that lighting, particularly on the traffic routes, could be put on the same terms as road improvements in ranking for grant?

Mr. Nugent: We have considered with them the basis of financing these grants, but not the shifting of powers and responsibilities. We have not at present been able to make progress on the point we did consult about.

Great North Road (Dual Carriageway)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made during recent months in improving the Great North Road; how many miles of dual carriageway have been completed; what are his plans for the future and what rate of progress he anticipates.

Mr. Watkinson: Since July of this year, 10 miles of new dual carriageway on the Great North Road have been opened to traffic. Work is also in progress on a further 23½ miles of dual carriageway.
The improvement of this road is one of my first priorities, and dual carriageways will be built as fast as funds will allow, but the improvement must obviously be phased over a number of years.


I expect that about 70 miles of dual carriageway will be open to traffic by the end of 1959 and a further 70 miles will at that time be under construction.

Commander Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who live near the north of England are grateful for the progress which has been made and that we shall be more grateful if that progress can be accelerated?

Mr. Watkinson: I certainly want to do my best, because I know what a contribution this road can make to the more efficient movement of both commercial vehicles and private traffic.

Bridges (Prestressed Concrete)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in the interests of saving materials and of cost, he will make more use of prestressed concrete for the construction of bridges in the new motorway and roads programme.

Mr. Nugent: The respective merits of the various forms of bridge construction are well known, and I do not think there is any need for me to urge especially the use of any one of them.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the motorway programme some concern has been expressed about the large number of bridges constructed of the relatively old-fashioned materials like reinforced concrete, and whether, in view of the saving in the cost of materials, it would not be better in some of these road programmes to have prestressed concrete?

Mr. Nugent: As a rule, we leave these matters to the consulting engineers, but I see that a number of big bridges are being built in prestressed concrete, the nearest and most important being the Gunners-bury fly-over at Chiswick. I think my hon. Friend may be confident that it will be used where it is most appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Renfrew Airport (Improvements)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reconstruction is proposed to be made at Renfrew Airport and its environs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: Plans are under consideration for the extension of the terminal building and the car park at Renfrew Airport to provide for increased traffic. I hope also to divert the western end of Arkleston Road in order to improve the flow of road traffic and also the flying approach to the main runway.

Mr. Rankin: While welcoming this development, may I ask the Minister if any assessment has been made of the cost, and if the cost of the road development will fall entirely on his Department?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member would not mind putting that Question down, as I am afraid I cannot answer it now; but I think this will make a very great improvement in the flying use of the airport.

Short-range Jet Aircraft

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether orders have yet been placed for the future requirements of British European Airways for short-range jet air liners.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for what reason the decision regarding the purchase of the British European Airways medium short-range airliner is still delayed.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 4th December to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).
Negotiations are at such a stage that I do not think it would be helpful for me to add anything to my previous Answer.

Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister give this matter his very close attention, remembering the long delay and uncertainty that we have had with regard to long-range airliners for B.O.A.C.?

Mr. Watkinson: I am giving it my very close attention, and I hope that it will soon be with some result.

Mr. Beswick: Are we to understand that as far as the technical considerations are concerned the decision could have been made by now, and that it is simply a question of financing this operation? If that is the case, is there not an obligation upon the Government to come to some decision as quickly as possible?

Mr. Watkinson: The House should certainly understand that this aircraft is to be a private venture, financed by funds provided by a firm or firms—and I hope that it will be a project in which some firms will merge their efforts. It has to be financed by them, and I think that that is the right way to place the order.

Mr. Beswick: But is it not a fact that if this private venture is to be successful it has to sell in the overseas market as well as in this country? If it has to sell overseas must not a start be made pretty soon?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes. That is why I am so anxious to get a quick solution in this matter. At the moment I think that matters are going forward as quickly as they can.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Why is it necessary in this case for the project to be financed by private venture? Is it not a fact that in other cases the Government have assisted with development costs and otherwise, in regard to the new planes which the Corporation has bought?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Member will no doubt remember that the V.C.10, of which we have very great hopes and which is on order for B.O.A.C., was a similar private venture on the part of Vickers and Rolls Royce.

Gatwick Airport (Opening)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether Gatwick Airport will be opened next year in time for British European Airways to operate their summer air traffic.

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects Gatwick Airport to be open for operations; what airlines are expected to operate there; and from what date.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): I am not yet ready to announce the exact date of opening, but I am confident that the airport will be available for services next summer. It is expected that British European Airways, Channel Island services, Transair Ltd. and Jersey Airlines, and possibly other airlines, will then operate from Gatwick.

Mr. Hunter: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether arrangements

have been made at Victoria Station for through trains to the new airport?

Mr. Neave: Those arrangements are under consideration at the moment by B.E.A. and the other parties concerned.

Aircraft Accident Inquiry (Report)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he has taken following the recommendations made by the Commissioner of the public inquiry into the accident to the Viking aircraft G-AJBO.

Mr. Watkinson: Changes in the arrangements for pilots' flight tests, which are being worked out, will give effect to the main suggestions made by the Commissioner. His view that alternate "six-monthly" tests should include a night check on engine-inoperative landings is still being studied.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister think that it would be advisable or useful if he could make some more detailed comment upon the recommendations put forward by the Commissioner of this inquiry? Very serious proposals were put forward, and some inadequacies were disclosed by the inquiry into this unfortunate accident. Is not the House to be assured that the Minister is taking action upon those recommendations?

Mr. Watkinson: I have just said that in regard to all the main suggestions made by the Commissioner changes are now being worked out. If the hon. Member would like me to supply him with a detailed list of how those will be applied I shall be only too pleased to let him have it.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why, although a Press notice of the inquiry Report concerning the accident to the Viking aircraft G-AJBO was issued on 5th November, the printed copies of the Report were not available in the Vote Office up to 12th December.

Mr. Neave: Printing of these Reports unavoidably takes some time but, in accordance with normal procedure, duplicated copies were placed in the Library of the House as soon as they were available—namely, on 6th November, when the results of the inquiry appeared in the Press.

Mr. Beswick: I understand that, but that is not the same thing as their being available in the Vote Office, for in that case they are available for taking away. As there was a considerable delay here, will the hon. Member look into the matter and see if it can be obviated in the future?

Mr. Neave: I will look into the matter. The practice of providing Reports in advance of printed copies being made available in the Stationery Office has existed since 1952.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Oil Pollution (International Convention)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many nations whose ships fly flags of convenience have so far failed to ratify the International Convention on the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil; what proportion of the world's tonnage they represent; and what steps are being taken to persuade those who have not yet done so to ratify the Convention before it becomes operative in July next.

Mr. Neave: None of these countries, whose ships account for about 13 per cent. of world tonnage, has yet ratified the Convention.
The Convention remains open for acceptance after it has come into force, and my right hon. Friend will then consider making a further approach to the countries which have not ratified it.

Mr. Awbery: Is not the Minister treating this matter very lightly? These ships flying flags of convenience are getting a great advantage over those which are complying with the regulations. Will he press those people now outside, including America, because the United States has not yet ratified the Convention, and cannot he do something to get them to ratify it before it comes into operation in July of next year?

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of this question. The countries which have not ratified the Convention have already been asked their intentions, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make further approaches at the appropriate time.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary consider that another way of getting these countries to ratify the Convention would be by approaching the large oil companies, over which we have some influence, and asking them if, when chartering ships, they will make this a condition of charter?

Mr. Neave: I think that is an idea we ought to bear in mind, and we will certainly do so.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has information which will show that the fines which have been imposed for breaches have had a beneficial effect?

Mr. Neave: I am afraid that I could not give that information without notice.

Large Oil Tankers (Port Facilities)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that five oil tankers are being constructed for the National Bulk Carriers, each of 104,500 tons dead weight, that none of these will be able to enter a British port because the facilities are not available for them, and that the berths contemplated at Milford are for vessels up to 80,000 tons: and if he will initiate further discussions to see that in the construction of the wharves, jetties, and dry-docks these will be made large enough to accommodate at least the largest vessel under construction at the time.

Mr. Watkinson: I am assured that these ships could be berthed at the facilities projected at Milford Haven and at those now being built at Finnart. Port authorities are very much alive to the need to provide for very large ships of this nature and I am in close touch with them on these matters.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it was reported a few weeks ago that this port would take ships only up to 80,000 tons, and that it would be absurd to construct a new port at this period, when ships of 106,000 tons are being constructed? Since the Question was put on the Order Paper, I have been assured that the port will accommodate the larger ships which are now under construction.

Mr. Watkinson: The reason for bringing forward the Milford Haven Bill was


that this very fine natural harbour will accommodate this type of ship and even larger ships, if necessary.

Shipowners' Liability

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the representatives of Her Majesty's Government at the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law held in Brussels in October, 1957, supported the raising of the present United Kingdom figures of shipowners' liability to about £74 and £24 per ton, respectively; and what documents relating to the International Convention on the Limitation of Shipowners' Liability were signed by such representatives at Brussels on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Neave: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir"; the answer to the second part is "None, Sir".

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Defence what contribution the Federal German Government will make in the forthcoming year towards the cost of maintaining British Forces in Germany.

Mr. John Hare: I have been asked to reply.
We have asked the North Atlantic Council to review the financial conditions on which United Kingdom Forces are maintained on the mainland of Europe. In doing so, we have acted in accordance with the Paris Agreements of 1954 and with the procedure established by the North Atlantic Council. My right hon. Friend has no further statement to make at present.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the negotiations this year are likely to be more successful than they were last year? Does not he think that in view of the cost to the British taxpayer, in hard currency; of the prosperity of Germany, and of the near insolvency of this country under the present Administration, it is very necessary that we should be tough in these negotiations and extract at least the full amount in the way of support costs?

Mr. Hare: I would say that we should naturally welcome a further contribution of mutual aid from our German partners in N.A.T.O., but I do not think that any good would be served by going into further details at this juncture.

N.A.T.O. Defence College, Paris

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Defence how many former British students of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence College in Paris now hold the rank of brigadier or equivalent.

Mr. John Hare: I have been asked to reply.
Five former students now hold the rank of brigadier and nine the rank of captain, R.N.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this comparatively small proportion of the seventy-eight students who have passed through shows that students of the right calibre are being chosen for this important course?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that these numbers are unsatisfactory. The course started only six years ago, and other former students will doubtless be promoted later on.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now arrange for the satisfactory completion by an officer of a course at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence College in Paris to be recorded after the officer's name in the appropriate service list, in the way that staff college qualifications are recorded.

Mr. John Hare: I have been asked to reply. This matter is being considered.

Mr. Kershaw: In considering the matter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that attendance at similar colleges in America—the J.S.S.C. and others—does carry this qualification, and it would be a good thing for the prestige of this important college if the Government would allow that to happen in this case?

Mr. Hare: I shall certainly see that what my hon. Friend says is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Rocket Bases, United Kingdom

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Defence (1) whether he will make the establishment of four rocket bases in the United Kingdom conditional on the repeal by the United States Congress of the restrictive clauses of the MacMahon Act;
(2) when the proposal to establish four rocket bases in the United Kingdom was first mooted, and by whom; whether these weapons are designed to be an effective counter to the Soviet intercontinental missiles; or to what other new military threat they are directed.

Mr. John Hare: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present nothing to add to the information he gave to the House on this subject on 12th December.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend think it likely that we shall have a full statement about this in the forthcoming debate on Friday?

Mr. Hare: I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have already said. I cannot give any indication that that will be so.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Do my right hon. Friend and the Government realise that if these rocket bases are established without an effective quid pro quo from the United States, that gives the United States a very distinct diplomatic and military advantage over us? Furthermore, if they are established here and other N.A.T.O. countries are refusing, for various reasons, to have them established, will not that introduce grave dissimilarities into the N.A.T.O. organisation?

Mr. Hare: Once again I will certainly bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the representations which my noble Friend has just made.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is because his right hon. Friend is detained elsewhere and not for any other reason that he is giving these stalling answers?

Mr. Hare: I really thought it was within the knowledge of the House, and I am sure that it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, that

my right hon. Friend is attending a very vital conference in Paris at the moment. I am sure that the House understands the reason for his absence.

DOCK LABOUR SCHEME (DEVLIN REPORT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir K. JOSEPH: To ask the Minister of Labour what conclusions he has reached from his consideration of the Devlin Report on the Dock Labour Scheme.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 89.
The Committee of which Mr. Justice Devlin was Chairman made two main recommendations: first, that the existing structure of the Dock Labour Scheme, involving joint control by employers and workers, should be preserved; and, secondly, that the National Dock Labour Board might be given the opportunity to exert a greater degree of leadership in dealing with the various problems of dock labour. The Committee also recommended a number of minor changes in the Scheme.
I have now considered the observations of all the bodies in the industry, and I have discussed the main recommendations with representatives of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board. I have decided to accept the recommendation that the structure of the Scheme should remain unchanged. I am happy to inform the House that all parties accept this decision and that both sides of the industry have given me an assurance of their whole hearted co-operation in operating the Scheme in the spirit which such a form of partnership demands.
As regards the second recommendation I have decided that, in the interests of the development of the work of the National Joint Council, the functions of the Board should not be extended, and the Board will continue as at present. This decision is in accordance with the


views that have been expressed to me by the interests concerned.
My officials are proceeding to discuss the minor amendments recommended in the Report with representatives of the industry and any necessary amendments to the Scheme will be made under the procedure provided by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946.

Sir K. Joseph: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcoming the acceptance of his decision by all concerned, and recognising the difficulties in the past history of this vital industry, may I ask whether he has reason to think, now that the life of this imaginative brain-child of Ernest Bevin is being renewed, the public can hope that a modern attitude on all sides will sweep through this industry, increasing efficiency and welfare and reducing costs and disputes?

Mr. Macleod: My answer reaffirms the existing character of the Dock Labour Scheme and the principle of dual control. I asked both sides of the industry to join in operating the scheme in the fullest sense of partnership and I have had the most warm response from them. I am grateful to both sides of the industry for that. As for disputes, touching all the wood that I can find, I can say that we have had as long a period of peace as people can remember in dockland, and I hope that it continues.

Mr. Isaacs: Before I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions, I should like to preface them with the comment that the Measure which set up the Dock Labour Scheme was passed with good will on both sides of the House. It was one of those occasions when both parties worked in unison to secure the best they could out of legislation. The fact that the scheme has now suffered four inquiries since it was brought into operation and has come out on top on each occasion is a tribute to the wisdom and the co-operation which was then exercised.
Quite properly, the right hon. Gentleman has divided the recommendations into two sections. While I do not, in the slightest degree, want to find fault with what has happened, and while I agree with the response which the right hon. Gentleman has received, may I point out

that he has said that there are two main recommendations, the first of which he accepts without any question? The right hon. Gentleman added that there was a second recommendation about the exercise of a greater degree of leadership. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, or, since all hon. Members might not be interested, inform later those who are interested, how he analyses that part of his statement? The Devlin Report contains 11 recommendations. Some of them recommend that something should be done and others recommend that nothing should be done. It is rather difficult to understand which of these recommendations are not accepted. In view of the fact that the decision to leave the structure of the scheme unchanged has been accepted by both sides of the industry, I should like to have that further information.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in his supplementary question, referred to welfare. Anybody who has studied this scheme knows that in the last two or three years, under Lord Crook, as Chairman of the Board, a great deal of very useful welfare work has been brought about. May I suggest to the Minister that, from the fact that there has been this extension of welfare and closer co-operation between both sides, it may well be that welfare has brought about greater understanding in industrial relations and has led to the minimising of disputes?

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It would be fair also to pay tribute to the part that he played when he held my office in the earlier years of the scheme.
As to the second main recommendation, as I have called it, which I am not accepting, the idea was that the National Dock Labour Board should extend some of its functions, which would inevitably have begun to entrench upon those of the National Joint Council. I have taken very careful advice from all the trade unions concerned, representatives of the employers, and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board. They say, and I agree with them, and this was my decision, that that would be a mistake, and that it would be right that the National Dock Labour Board should continue generally its present


functions and allow ordinary matters of industrial relations to be dealt with in a normal way, in general, by the National Joint Council.
There will be opportunity to consider the other, minor recommendations. Any Order that I make amending the scheme—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because I think that he was the Minister when the Act was introduced—has to be laid. Therefore, there will be opportunity later, if required, to comment upon or, indeed, to debate such alterations as are proposed.

Mr. Isaacs: May I say that I accept what the Minister has said and that I entirely agree with his attitude on that point? There were some recommendations for and against, and I had some doubts as to whether extending this scheme in the way which was suggested might not bring with it some dangers. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been quite right in his decision.

Sir J. Hutchison: Now that the Devlin Committee has done such good work in this connection, would my right hon. Friend consider keeping it in operation to inquire into the methods of voting in the Electrical Trades Union?

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is asking for trouble.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of this scheme in our ports wiped out one of the blackest spots in the country's industrial history? Is he aware that since the scheme has been in operation there has been better understanding between employers and workpeople and fewer cases of misunderstanding and fewer strikes than ever before in its history? Is he aware that we on this side of the House want to express our appreciation of the Report and that we hope to hear something more about it later?

Mr. Mellish: While associating myself with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) said, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that one of the greatest problems still facing dockland is the continuing scourge of unemployment? We know that these men receive a guaranteed wage, but it is not all that large, especially in view of today's cost-of-living problems. Is the Minister aware

that at the height of the Christmas season, when there ought to be work for everyone, there is a great deal of unemployment in my constituency and, I believe, elsewhere?

Mr. Macleod: The matter goes a little wider than my Answer this afternoon. I hope very much that, now that the basic principle of the scheme has been reaffirmed and has been settled and accepted most willingly and co-operatively by everyone concerned, it will be easier to discuss, in the spirit of partnership, all these problems which ought to be discussed among the matters that are bound to arise under the Scheme.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION)

Mr. C. Pannell: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice, and which would appear to be a matter of substance. I think it may appear that a decision that you gave reflects on the status in this House of the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to a Ruling you gave on 10th December, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who is acting as Leader of the Opposition while the Leader of the Opposition is abroad, sought to ask a Question by Private Notice.
My right hon. Friend wanted to ask the Prime Minister what proposals Her Majesty's Government would put forward at the Conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. My right hon. Friend said he was well aware that a Question in those terms had been put down before and answered by the Foreign Secretary. During the short debate, if I may use that term, about that matter on 10th December, the objection which was felt was because you, Mr. Speaker, rested your decision not to allow that Private Notice Question on the fact that a similar Question had been previously answered. You referred to the Answer which the Foreign Secretary had previously given in reply to that similar Question, and you said:
That Answer is a complete answer and is a reply to a Question which is indistinguishable in matter from that submitted by the right hon. Member for Llanelly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1082.]


I am not arguing about that, but merely stating these facts so that the House will know the context in which I am raising this point of order. The argument which developed on that occasion was that the substance of the Question was a matter of urgency and importance. No one doubts the importance of that conference, which has probably been the most distinguished conference in Paris since 1919. No one argued about the importance of the conference. The argument was that in the rapidly changing circumstances of the time a Question, though the same in words as another Question not long previously answered, became different in its application. However, you did not accept that.
I should have been satisfied but for what happened the next day. The next day a Private Notice Question submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly was accepted and permitted to be asked and, substantially, it was in exactly the same terms as the Question that he had sought to ask the day before. It was substantially the same, but the word "now" was added. That seems to me to be a distinction without very much difference.
That brings me to a further question, Sir. I thought that your Ruling put the Opposition at a considerable disadvantage. As you know, I have been into the precedents of the Rulings on Private Notice Questions by the Leader of the Opposition. I am not armed today with any Standing Orders, but there is no question that by custom, precedent and convention the Leader of the Opposition is deemed to be in a position different from that of all other Members of the House. He does not speak on behalf of himself. He does not normally put Questions on the Notice Paper. He asks Questions by Private Notice on matters which he, as Leader of the Opposition, considers are urgent or important to the Opposition itself.
I am fortified in thinking this by what happened in 1945. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was then Leader of the Opposition and he used the procedure of the Private Notice Question and in so doing came under some fire from this the party then on the other side of the

House. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown ruled:
It is not the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to put Questions on the Order Paper. The only way in which he can put a Question is by Private Notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 242.]
The Private Notice Question asked by the right hon. Gentleman would not appear to have been a matter of urgency and importance. The right hon. Gentleman was asking what were the total numbers of troops disposed in various countries. Nevertheless, it was, in the opinion at least of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, important. Two days later Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown again said:
It is the custom of this House for the Leader of the Opposition not to ask many Questions but to ask those which are of an urgent important character, and he never puts a Question on the Order Paper but puts it by Private Notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 629.]
I could cite many other cases but you. Mr. Speaker, will know the sort of examples to which I am referring. I have been through these precedents, but one does not need to go back any further than 1945, and before and since then a convention seems to have grown that the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of half of the House, has a status different from that of any other Member of the House. This has grown by custom, practice and convention. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House will not become impatient, because I have been speaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford when he was the champion of their rights when they were in opposition. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may want another champion of their rights after the next Election.
This custom and precedent which were extended to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford did not disappear when he ceased to be Leader of the Opposition, and I think I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that a degree of affront was felt on this side of the House the other day. We felt that the Leader of the Opposition, or his deputy, in his absence, was not allowed to put a view which was strongly held on this side of the House.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that in asking you for your Ruling I appreciate


that your position is a great one as the interpreter and custodian of our Standing Orders and our privileges. The Leader of the Opposition, too, has a great position, and I would ask you, Sir, to bear in mind that the Leader of the Opposition is the principal critical voice of the country—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: What a voice.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member would not deny what I am saying if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford were sitting in the place of the Leader of the Opposition.
The voice of the Leader of the Opposition is the principal critical voice in the country. His is a position as responsible and as honoured as that of anybody in this House. It should, if possible, be enhanced.
I should be grateful, and the disquiet on this side of the House would be alleviated, Mr. Speaker, if you could tell us what is the result of your investigations into this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) gave me notice that he would raise this matter in a general way, and I am very glad indeed to answer his question if it dispels the misunderstanding which, apparently, exists about it.
The question which he really put to me was how far I could refuse to accept a Private Notice Question from the Leader of the Opposition. The matter is really quite simple. Past Speakers have ruled that it is the custom in this House for the Leader of the Opposition not to ask any Questions but to ask those which are of an urgent, important character, and that he never puts a Question on the Order Paper but puts it by Private Notice. I accept that. That is the custom of the House. Indeed, the factor of urgency is not, in practice, insisted on in the case of the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Member will see in Erskine May, page 362 of the latest edition, that
Questions which are asked without appearing on the paper are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given.
Some, though not all, of these rules are listed in May, pages 358 to 360 under

the title, "Examples of inadmissible questions." For instance, paragraph (26) says:
Repeating in substance Questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused.
The hon. Member refers to a Question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) sought to put on 10th December last. The right hon. Gentleman was as much bound as any other hon. Member by the ordinary rules, and I had to refuse it because, though important, it was fully answered by the Foreign Secretary in answer to a Question by another hon. Member on 4th December.
I have already dealt with this matter at some length, when it was raised before, and today the only thing I should like to say, since the hon. Member has now raised his difficulty, is why I allowed, on the subsequent day, a Question by the same right hon. Gentleman, which, the hon. Member says, differed from the other only because the word "now" was in it.
That is not the case. If the hon. Member has it, he will see that the original Question as I recollect it, and paraphrasing it as well as I can, was: would the Prime Minister make a statement as to the proposals which Her Majesty's Government proposed to lay before the N.A.T.O. conference? I think that that was the gist of it. I have not got it with me. That had been answered already, in the sense that the Foreign Secretary, answering for the Government, had said they would not make a statement on that subject before the conference.
The Question which I allowed to be answered on the following day was to ask the Prime Minister
whether he will now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not, at the forthcoming N.A.T.O. Conference, enter into any commitment involving a fundamental change in the structure of N.A.T.O. and the surrender of any degree of national sovereignty without the prior approval of Parliament."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 11th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1270.]
That was quite a different Question. It had not been answered by the Government beforehand, so I instantly allowed it. That is the effect of the rule.
I would like to say this. A less strict view is, by custom, taken of Private Notice Questions from the Leader of the


Opposition just because it is not customary for him to put any other kind of Question. It is less strict in that urgency is not insisted on. The factor of importance is left to the right hon. Member himself to decide. In other words, these two factors, which result in many Private Notice Questions being disallowed for ordinary Members, are not applied in the case of the Leader of the Opposition. He is himself supposed to be the judge of the importance of the matter, and the Speaker accepts his view on the subject. Neither is it necessary for him to show urgency, as it is in the case of an ordinary Member, who has an opportunity to put a Question on the Order Paper, because the right hon. Member does not put Questions on the Order Paper. So these two factors are waived but, beyond that, all the other ordinary rules apply. I am bound by the rules and I am bound to apply them.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) mentioned that he had not been able to find any precedent on this matter. That is natural because what happens in my office, and between myself and the hon. Member who seeks to put a Private Notice Question, is not recorded in HANSARD or in the Journals of the House, and does not appear anywhere else, so precedents on it are not easy to find.
If I may say what sometimes happens, it is that if I do not think that the Question is sufficiently urgent to warrant it being dealt with by Private Notice, and there is a convenient opportunity for it to be answered in the ordinary way—as in the case of ordinary Members putting Questions on the Order Paper—I ask the hon. Member concerned to put it on the Order Paper. It can be phrased in another way which will not transgress the rules. I sometimes suggest to the hon. Member how he can get over the difficulty of the rules of order if I think that the Question, on its merits, deserves to be given the priority of a Private Notice Question.
But when a Question is flatly against one of the rules of the House, as this one was, I am bound by the rules. There is nothing can do. I hope that I have succeeded in clearing up the matter and that the House will acquit me of any desire to affront either the right hon.

Member or any other section of opinion in the House.

Mr. C. Pannell: I am grateful to you, Sir, because this Ruling will be on the record and it will clear up a great deal of the ambiguity that might arise from your previous Ruling in HANSARD. It had not entered my mind to feel that you were guilty of affronting us, but it is not sometimes the man we are that matters it is the man other people sometimes think we are that is important. May interpolate here that I sought for previous Rulings on the subject, but the only Ruling that I could find appears in column 1018, on 11th May, 1954. On that date the Leader of the Opposition appeared to be out of order in a comparable circumstance, and you said that on that day you would have called for a statement from the Chancellor which would have given him his answer, and so, consequently, I had only that to guide me.
I hope you will appreciate, too, Sir, that it is necessary not only that we should agree with your Ruling but that we should reconcile it with Rulings that have gone before, if it is only to put Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown in order. Thank you very much, Sir.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I say at once, Sir, that I accept your assurance, and that I never suggested that there was any personal affront in this matter. There is one further point I want to put to you. I accepted your Ruling that I was asking for a statement and that there had already been a refusal to make a statement. I urged, however, that in a situation which changes as rapidly as does the international situation in the context of the N.A.T.O. conference, to ask for a statement was legitimate because the situation changed from day to day, there were many rumours, and Governments of various kinds were bringing forward proposals. That was why I sought to put a Private Notice Question on that day.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the Question on the following day was correct, and his Question was answered. I have to try to see that Questions conform to the rules.
Now may I deal with one small matter which the hon. Member for Leeds, West also raised? He referred


to an incident that took place on 11th May, 1954, and he was good enough to mention this to me last night when he spoke to me in the Chair. I looked it up, because I did not remember it at the time. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Leader of the Opposition:
Mr. GAITSKELL (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make in regard to his recent conversations with the West German Government.
I allowed that, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) rose in his place and said:
On a point of order. Would you kindly advise the House, Mr. Speaker, what is the procedure when a similar Question appears on the Order Paper? I thought you ruled the other day that Private Notice Questions are not to be accepted.
It is a rule that I do not accept a Private Notice Question if it anticipates a Question which someone else has put on the Order Paper. That is one of the rules. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
I thought you ruled the other day that Private Notice Questions are not to be accepted. I do not want to prejudice the information being given, but I think we should have some consistency.
I replied, I think correctly:
I was not aware that another Question was on the Paper; I must have overlooked it. Otherwise, I should not have allowed this in the form of a Private Notice Question. I should, instead, have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he so desired, to make a statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 1017 and 1018.]
Of course, on that occasion I was accepting absolutely from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that there was another Question of a similar character which would have barred it. I knew nothing to the contrary, and I accepted his assurance. Although I have not the details here, I remember that at the time there was some distinction in the Question on the Order Paper which allowed the Question to be put. One of the first things I always do when a Private Notice Question is submitted is to have a search made to ensure that it does not anticipate another Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Benn: I should like to put a different point relating to the same problem, Sir. The Standing Order that governs the admission of Questions after half-past three o'clock is Standing Order No. 8,

which states that they may not be answered unless the Minister has been absent earlier or unless they are, in Mr. Speaker's opinion, of an urgent nature and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.
If I may speak for myself, Sir, I took the Private Notice Question of the acting Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday week to be, in effect, a statement about business. It asked whether the Prime Minister would be making a statement about the view of the Government. Clearly, the rules of anticipation which apply to ordinary Parliamentary Questions also apply to Private Notice Questions. They could not, by any stretch of the imagination, apply to business Questions, because the Leader of the Opposition asks the same Question, like clockwork, every Thursday afternoon at half-past three, and it is then traditional for hon. Members to press their own particular claims upon the Leader of the House.
Therefore, I would like to ask you, Sir, whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was not exercising a rather different function when he brought forward this Question, and was actually ascertaining whether there was to be a rearrangement of business to permit the House to be informed of the Government's intentions. It is rather confusing. I certainly did not realise, until I read this Standing Order, that there is not a distinction between a business Question and a Private Notice Question, and I should be most grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could add any words of clarification which would help the House.

Mr. Speaker: Whether it was a question on business or a question on policy it was barred by the previous Answer. As a matter of fact, it was not really a question on business. It was a request for a statement on what proposals were to be put. The question was to ask the Prime Minister
…whether he would state what proposals Her Majesty's Government will put forward at the forthcoming Conference of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
That is not business. It may be the business of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, but it is not the business of this House.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman asks, week after week, the Leader of the House to state the business for the following week is not repetition of the question. It is the business for next week, and what has already been answered is the business for the week that is over.

BILL PRESENTED

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Bill to make provision as to the areas in which the Colonial Development Corporation may operate, and to increase the sums which may be borrowed by the Corporation or advanced to them by the Secretary of State, presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; supported by Mr. Alport and Mr. Profumo; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Motion standing in the name of Mr. R. A. Butler relating to Standing Orders exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer new powers to impose duties of customs in place of the powers conferred by the Import Duties Act, 1932, and to make other provision in connection therewith, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of certain expenses in connection with any board constituted by the Act of the present Session for the purpose (among others) of giving assistance to the Treasury and the Board of Trade in connection with their functions under the Act, namely—

(i) in respect of members of the board, any expenses on account of their remuneration or allowances or on account of payments made to or in respect of them by way of pension, allowance or gratuity on ceasing to hold office or by way of provision for such a pension., allowance or gratuity; and
(ii) in respect of the officers and servants of the board, any expenses on account of their remuneration, and any increase in the sums payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950, out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(iii) such expenses incurred by the board as may be authorised by the Act; and
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses which a Government department may incur under any provision for giving relief from duties imposed by the Act, and the payment into the Exchequer of any fees which a Government department may receive under any such provision.

Resolution agreed to.

IMPORT DUTIES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(NEW POWER TO CHARGE PROTECTIVE DUTIES.)

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "section" to insert:
(2) The rate of import duty imposed by order on any goods under this section shall not exceed one half the rate of duty on those goods in force immediately before the beginning of nineteen hundred and fifty-nine:
Provided that where an order has the effect of charging a rate of duty on any goods in such a way that the new rate is not strictly comparable with the old, the order may not


be made unless it declares the opinion of the Treasury to be that, in the circumstances existing at the date of the order, the order is not calculated to impose a general level of duty on the goods exceeding one half of that in force before the beginning of nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
I do not wish to conceal that this Amendment is very sweeping. The purpose of it is to arrange that when this Bill becomes an Act duties on imports into this country should be one half of what they now are.
I have to ask the Committee for its indulgence for a considerable time while I develop that matter, first, by explaining why the proposal should be of this sweeping nature, why it should be over the whole of the tariffs, and, secondly, to answer some of the questions raised in the debate on Second Reading when various hon. Members criticised the idea that it would be to the benefit of this country to indulge in a unilateral reduction of tariffs, that is, a reduction of tariffs of the United Kingdom, even if there were not a similar reduction of tariffs of overseas countries.
I would briefly remind the Committee of the present tariff basis. About six-sevenths of all imports coming into this country now come in free of protective duty. That is not generally recognised by many people outside the Committee. Nearly all our raw materials and foodstuffs come in duty free. The tariffs are concentrated, to put it in the simplest terms, on manufactured goods. This year, in the Financial Statement, it is estimated that the revenue from protective tariffs is expected to be about £87 million. This in previous years has been raised on just over £500 million of imports. So it is a high tariff, in one sense, on a narrow section of our imports. Nevertheless, I think that it is an important one in its effect on the cost of production in this country.
I will briefly remind the Committee of the different rates on some of these manufactures. On chemical and scientific materials the tariffs are the highest, varying from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent.; on general, domestic or business requisites the tariff ranges between 20 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent., covering such things as household brushes, typewriters for offices, motor cars and machinery for all forms of production. The third group, on building materials, varies from 15 per cent. to

20 per cent., on such things as nails, baths, doors, steel window frames, etcetera. The fourth group are all those things for use on the farm, varying from machinery to forks, spades and even fertilisers, and the range is in general from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent.

Mr. Alan Green: Textiles?

Mr. Holt: On textiles, as the hon. Member probably knows as well as I do, the general figure is 17½ per cent.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman wants to halve it.

Mr. Holt: There were many interruptions the last time I spoke. Although in another context I would welcome them, I hope that the hon. Member will let me make my speech, and if there is anything further that he then wants to know, perhaps he would interrupt me. If he would allow me to develop my speech I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the Committee.
I think that the extraordinary thing is that, although many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee still hold to protectionist ideas, there has been no action on their part to effect a change of tariff. The trade of this country has so greatly varied in the last thirty years that what must have been valid as it seemed to the protectionists thirty years ago can now hardly be considered valid even by them.
To give an instance, the textile trade thirty years ago, was still a great exporter, and although it was having a hard time it could apparently stand up to competition better than the engineering industry and consequently it got only half the tariff of the engineering industry. That is completely reversed. The cotton part of the textile industry now exports only about as much as it imports and has ceased to be a net exporter. I should have thought that even protectionists would have felt it desirable to have had an alteration of the tariff, and I am surprised that they have not seized the opportunity for doing it by this Bill.
There are, of course, growing complaints about the tariff structure. No doubt some hon. Members have had a letter from the Federation of Construction Machinery Importers. There have been complaints about the tariff being


charged—as much as 33⅓ per cent.—on the import of construction and earth-moving machinery into this country. This machinery is greatly needed for every form of building. This unnecessary imposition requires an explanation from the Government.
Those who saw the News Chronicle on Monday will have seen a headline, "High Customs Duty Costs Lives". If they read the article they will have found that it was about a new piece of machinery used in hospitals called a capnograph. It is apparently for measuring and recording the carbon dioxide in human respiration. It is made by a firm called Godarth and Mijnhardt Ltd. of Holland. As yet, there are only four of these machines in this country. The duty imposed on the machine is 33⅓ per cent. and it costs the hospital service £230 to pay this duty. This is an odd situation, because the Government are paying the money for the hospital service and they are, therefore, paying their own import duties on this machinery. The machine is required for preventing deaths under anaesthetic on the operating table; to enable polio victims to get out of iron lungs, and to save lives in cases of poisoning and tetanus.
This is one of the cases in which even under the present system the Board of Trade, which has the powers, could decide to let the machinery in duty free, but apparently the Board of Trade is more concerned with protecting the machinery makers, none of whom makes a machine to do this work, than with protecting the lives of patients in the hospitals.
Another case which some hon. Members may have seen earlier in the week was recorded in the Manchester Guardian. Mr. J. C. Tusting, managing director of Harrold Leather Manufacturing Company, complained about the difficulty of getting samples from his agents overseas through our Customs. These were samples which he required in order to produce the leather goods to send to his customers overseas. There is so much delay in getting samples into the country that by the time he has decided how to make the goods he has lost the orders because other countries have put the matter through a great deal quicker. There are therefore, complaints, and as more pressure is put by the Government on manufacturers both to lower their

prices and to export more, we shall hear more of these complaints from different parts of the country.
Perhaps I may deal with two points raised by the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State about our suggestion that tariffs should be lowered unilaterally by the United Kingdom. For some strange reason the Minister of State quoted my election address. He made amusing fun of it and I take no objection to that. He cast scorn on the suggestions in my election address that abroad we should work to get other countries to reduce their barriers to our export trade and to dissuade them from bad practices, such as subsidies, which result in unfair competition. He said that if we keep our tariffs, we always have a bargaining weapon. He suggested that if all we could do was to work and to persuade, then the position was unreal and something which no ordinary sensible politician would suggest.
I ask him what is the whole purpose of G.A.T.T. and of the O.E.E.C.? Has it achieved nothing? Is it not to achieve a fairer system of trade by persuasion and work? Of course it is. As the Government constantly support it, they must accept that this is a workable solution.
4.15 p.m.
My argument is that while we continue with these efforts, we must not simply stop at that. It is in the interests of this country to lower its tariffs. We go on working through G.A.T.T. both to get countries to trade fairly and to stop subsidies and also to reduce their tariffs if possible, but while that work goes on it remains vital—and this is my case and the point of the Amendment—that we should make a considerable reduction in our own tariffs.

Mr. Douglas Glover: The hon. Members says that this is his case. I take it that he is giving the official case of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Holt: Of course.
The President of the Board of Trade in the same debate made another point which I should like to meet. He said:
Our view is that we need a protective tariff as a bargaining weapon to secure as large markets for our exports as can be secured on the basis of fair give and take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 39.]


This sounds a wonderful argument, but if he is fair he must admit that Great Britain is in a very weak state to bargain.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member wants to make us weaker.

Mr. Holt: We are not weak because of tariffs. The hon. Member misses the point. We are in a weak position because we must import and export large quantities of goods. We must do this or we cannot exist. A country which has to do this is in a very weak position when negotiating with another country which is little affected whether it imports or exports. The latter can say that it is not interested, but we are not in that position. We must import a great deal to feed ourselves and to provide the raw materials for our manufacturing businesses, and we must export a lot to pay for it. I am sure the President of the Board of Trade knows that it is bluff to deny that in this bargaining Britain has in almost every case no edge over another country.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that it is silly to lower our tariffs on our own, but this is precisely what the Germans have done in recent years—and how often are the Germans cited as a wonderful example because of the way they have recovered since the war and as setting an example of economic freedom? They have reduced the general level of a whole lot of tariffs from 24 per cent. to 16 per cent. in the last two or three years and they made a reduction again last summer.
No substantial case can be made out for our not doing this. We should do it more than any other country in the world. The same comment applies to retaliation. The Minister of State said that we had successfully used retaliation once in twenty or thirty years, but how many times have people put up their tariffs against us? Apparently we have used retaliation only once successfully. This is natural, because it is an extremely difficult weapon for us to use successfully. When the Americans threatened to raise their traffs on bicycles or, as they are attempting at the moment, to raise their tariff on wool, are we in a position to retaliate? No. We are in a position to work and persuade, but that is all that we can do. We have not been entirely unsuccessful in that kind of action. If

retaliation results in anything, it results in our cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has just mentioned Germany as being, to his way of thinking, a paragon of virtue in conduct of tariffs. I would remind him that Germany's present tariff level, if averaged over the three years and compared with the total value of her imports, shows that she is second only to Switzerland. In other words, she is almost at the top of the list with some 7·5 per cent., as against Switzerland's 9·8 per cent., and France's 3·5 per cent.

Mr. Holt: I dispute the hon. and gallant Member's figures. I invite him to look at the Economist for 13th October, 1956—he can get it from the Library almost immediately—which presented in table form some of the main comparable tariffs of both the European and the United Kingdom countries. It is generally accepted that the German tariffs now, are at about half our own tariff levels, and those of Benelux are even closer to that level.
When one talks of tariff levels, one can get some very different answers, but it seems to me that the only realistic way is to consider the value and quantity of a country's production of anything, such as machinery, and then see what is the tariff on it. One does not arrive at any satisfactory comparison by just seeing how much comes in, because, of course, the higher the tariff, the less comes in. Therefore, when we start taking averages of the levels of tariff and of the imports we really do not get a realistic figure. I have worked that one out, and the average level of our tariffs on that basis is about 16 per cent. That, of course, gives a quite unrealistic picture, because much more is bound to come in over a lower than over a higher tariff. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a true comparison of tariff levels as between Germany and the United Kingdom shows our level to be just about double that of Germany's. Electric transformers furnish an example. The German tariff on that equipment varies from nil to 8 per cent., whereas in the United Kingdom it is 20 per cent.
We propose in this Amendment that the United Kingdom tariffs should be


cut by 50 per cent. I would have no objection if that were done in two stages—cut to 25 per cent. by June, and cut by a further 25 per cent. when the provisions of the Bill are to come into force, in just about a year's time. The purposes of this action are twofold: first of all, to reduce prices at home to the consumer—and this is a weapon in the Government's campaign to stabilise wages and prices, and to stop the cost-of-living index gong up; the second is to achieve a reduction in the costs of the producer, and to make competition more effective.
The Government can hardly disagree with the first of these objects because that is what I understand their economic policy is all about. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been making pleas, as recently as last week, for manufacturers to stabilise their prices, and even to reduce them—the Prime Minister on the air a week on Tuesday, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a meeting of the National Union of Manufacturers on, I think, the following day. The Chancellor, however, has already gone on record, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, as not reckoning much to Government pleading. He realises that what is required is not to tell the people what they want but to indicate what the Government intend to do about it.
My complaint is that, on tariffs, he is not taking the action to implement the policy that he requires. Conditions must be changed, whereby the cost to manufacturers can be reduced, and market forces can come into action to cause them to be reduced. The Chancellor must surely know that merely to plead with manufacturers will make no difference whatever. The manufacturer will get the best prices he can, and no plea by the Chancellor will make him reduce them. When we enter the Free Trade Area, the manufacturer will have lost some of his protection, and be up against more foreign competition. That is why I think that one of the solutions, amongst others, is a substantial cut over the whole range of our general tariffs. This would create the right atmosphere, in which the Government might have some success in achieving greater stability on the wages front.
British industry really does require a shock to stir it up. It is still not appreciating the kind of new atmosphere in which it will have to work. I am glad to have in this argument the support of a new document, which hon. Members have no doubt received recently, called "Britain and Europe," and produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It is a most interesting document. I do not profess to have read it all, but I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to page 62. There it is stated:
The firm which says 'Free trade won't have much effect on our sales; we'll meet foreign competition when it comes,' is looking for trouble.
There can be no doubt about that. It will be looking for trouble. The document goes on:
Britain has had twenty-five years of protection, fifteen of them marked by a high level of domestic demand. Some enterprises which have been able to get by in these conditions would have gone under bad competition been stronger and sales less buoyant, not because of any inherent inability to produce more efficiently but simply because of the attitude of mind. The change in trading conditions will he so gradual in an F.T.A. that there may be no sufficient shock at any one moment of time to arouse firms from their lethargy.
This is a very important matter. There can be no question about the revolution in trading conditions into which this country will go when we enter the Free Trade Area, and there is a frightful danger that a lot of firms will go in in just that way. They will say, "We shall be able to keep going just in the home market. After all, we shall not have very much more competition." It will all be so gradual that they will not wake up until it is too late. From the point of view of administering this shock, it would be a most excellent thing for the Government, before going into the Free Trade Area, to make a unilateral cut in our tariff system.
The Government have always been very "cagey" about telling Parliament exactly what is to happen when we go into the Free Trade Area, particularly to our trade with countries outside the area. From the beginning the Liberal Party has said that the Government should not ask for a waiver from our most-favoured-nation clauses; that is, that we should have free trade with the rest of the world as we shall have with Europe. I do not imagine that the Government will accept this, but do they intend to go into the Free Trade


Area and leave our tariffs with countries outside Europe at the height they are now? If so, this will cause the most frightful disruption with our trade with the rest of the world.
Trade with the rest of the world represents 80 per cent. of our total trade, and only 20 per cent. is done with the countries which may form the Free Trade Area.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Green: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. A very high proportion of that 80 per cent. is done with the Commonwealth. We are not proposing to put up tariffs in the Commonwealth in addition to Europe.

Mr. Holt: I quite agree. Of that 80 per cent. 50 per cent. is done with the Commonwealth. There is still 30 per cent. left over. The point about the 50 per cent. done with the Commonwealth is that the Commonwealth is likely to produce more manufactured goods in the future. A lot of the goods which Commonwealth countries have produced in the past thirty years come in duty free. Many other goods in theory carry a duty, but in any case they do not send those to us at the moment. We receive things like cars from Canada. As the Common, wealth countries develop, it is more and more likely that the nature of their trade with us will change.
The 30 per cent. trade with the rest of the world is a matter about which the House should be concerned. As I have pointed out, Germany has reduced her tariffs unilaterally in recent years. The tariffs of Germany and the Benelux countries are, in fact, about half our own. It is a matter of concern for us to go into the Free Trade Area with our own tariffs, and, therefore, our own costs, higher than those of those countries.
That is one point. The second point is this. Because of what we need to do internally for our own sake in trying to stabilise wages and prices, a cut in our own tariffs would have a substantial effect. It would be the kind of action which the Government could take very quickly. It would not be a difficult job. It would create the kind of conditions which would bring about what the Government want. The Government must know well enough by now that pleadings to manufacturers to reduce their prices

will get them nowhere. The Chancellor has recognised this in monetary matters. He has induced shock tactics with a 7 per cent. Bank Rate. He should now complement that action by shock tactics on the tariff front as well.

Major Legge-Bourke: If we might assume for a moment that free trade were desirable in itself, I think that one has to consider the factors which are most likely to make it possible. I should have thought that the most important factor is that before we can have it we must be a creditor nation ourselves.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), who has often argued this point with me, firmly believes that a nation becomes a creditor nation by having a free trade area. That is the first fundamental disagreement I have with him. I believe that as long as the greatest creditor nation itself is adopting a highly protective policy it is absolutely essential that the debtor nations to it should have the right to discriminate in their trade. He knows that I have put that case to him very often before.
When we consider the detail of his argument today, it may, possibly, be significant that he has not made any reference to one particular part of his recommendation which, if implemented, might completely ruin a great many people who were quite incapable of defending themselves over it. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. Member for Bolton, West was challenged by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn) on the issue of horticultural tariffs. In a sweeping statement he said that it was the Liberal Party's policy to make a voluntary reduction of 50 per cent. in all tariffs, which, presumably, includes horticultural tariffs. This afternoon he said that none of the protectionists has ever pressed since the war for an increase in tariffs. In saying that, he must be overlooking a very important document, "Increased Duties on Certain Fresh and Preserved Fruit and Vegetables," Cmd. 9018, published in 1953. If he looks at that document, he will find that there are a great many tariffs which, at that time, as a result of requests from the National Farmers' Union and other bodies representing small horticultural growers, were increased by 100 per cent.
Let us take one or two commodities. Blackcurrants and redcurrants are of vital importance in certain localities in this country and in Scotland. There the rate was raised from 16th June to 31st August from 2d. to 4d. per lb. Strawberries are of vital importance to the Isle of Ely, Kent, Hampshire and, in small quantities, to many other areas. The tariff there stayed the same from 1st April to 15th June at 1½d. per lb. or 10 per cent. ad valorem, whichever was the less, but from 10th June to 31st July it went up from 1½d. per lb. to 6d. per lb.
I do not want to quote all these commodities, but there are just three other commodities I would like to mention which are of importance. Carrots went up, from 1st May to 30th June, from 10s. per cwt. to 20s. per cwt. New potatoes stayed at 1s. per cwt. from 1st September to 15th May, but from 16th May to 30th June they went up from 4s. 8d. to 9s. 4d. per cwt.
Finally, tomatoes. May I say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West that, unless he realises that by now the tomato industry is the foundation of the horticultural industry, he ought to think a little more before he says what he said this afternoon. The tomato tariff, which had run from 15th May to 31st August at 2d. per lb., went up from 1st May to 31st May, if the value exceeded 1s. 3d. per lb., to 4d. per lb. It stayed, at 4d. from the 1st June to 31st August, but it went from 1st September to 31st October to 2d. per lb.
I have mentioned those because they are important commodities in the horticultural industry. The hon. Member for Bolton, West made a proposal which, if implemented, would mean that we should go back to the old figures. Anybody who has had anything to do with the negotiations and who has kept in touch with the business and put forward recommendations to the Board of Trade over the years knows perfectly well that even what was given in 1953 was not adequate to meet all the needs. Now, there are applications for increased tariffs to enable these growers, particularly tomato growers, to make both ends meet.
What my right hon. Friend must realise is this. In many horticultural districts, glasshouses, in particular, were built before the industry that now

surrounds them was developed as it is today. The result is that many glasshouse growers have not just to pay the agricultural minimum wage. They have to pay the minimum wage in manufacturing industry. Often they have to work in foul conditions. In the glasshouse production of tomatoes, some growers operate on the system whereby they put one man in charge of so many flights of glass. The man has to get up at any time of the night to see that his fires are stoked up. These men usually have to be paid by the growers the sort of wages being paid by surrounding industrial employment. This means that the cost of British horticulture must not be based purely on the minimum wage in agriculture. We must think of it in terms of industrial wages.
The part of the tomato industry concerned mostly with tariffs is the hothouse production side. The tariffs have been designed to ensure that hothouse production is not undermined at the wrong moment. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may know that even before he occupied his present office there was considerable agitation over the Canary Islands imports. Looking at the figures, which I have taken the trouble to do as the result of the hon. Member putting down such an outrageous Amendment as he has done today, I can well understand horticultural growers being disturbed, quite apart from the hon. Member's Amendment, with things being in statu quo.
Let us consider what has been happening, for example, in imports of tomatoes over the last three years. According to the Trade and Navigation Accounts, even with the tariff increases which I have outlined, the figures for imports of Dutch tomatoes have risen from 412,251 cwt. at a cost of £2,588,079 in 1955, to 429,259 cwt. at a price of £3,083,871 during the first ten months of this year. From Spain, the figure has increased from £269,058 to £388,079 this year. From the Canary Islands, it has risen by approximately £1 million from about £6,324,000 in 1955 to £7,345,000 this year.
There are quite enough embarrassments for the horticultural industry without the hon. Member putting forward the sort of Amendment that he has put forward today. The Amendment, representing


official Liberal policy, spells absolute ruin to our horticultural growers. The hon. Member has declared that the Liberal Party has for all time abandoned the horticultural grower. Heaven only knows how any horticultural grower thought that the Liberal Party was of the slightest assistance to him in the past—

Mr. Holt: Mr. Holt rose—

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to have interrupted the hon. Member several times, but I did so only once. I promise him one opportunity before I sit down.
The hon. Member must surely realise that if he insists upon a policy of free trade for British horticulture—unless he is throwing over the horticultural industry altogether—he must find a way of subsidising the industry, if he wants to be fair to it in comparison with agriculture. That is the logical deduction to draw from his remarks.
4.45 p.m.
A great many people have given a great deal of thought about how to give to horticultural producers the sort of guarantees that are given under the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act, 1957, which has more than endorsed all the guarantees that were written into the original Act of 1947. No one has yet been able to discover a way of doing this.
The hon. Member today has not put forward a new method of upholding this important section of the general agricultural industry. Perhaps he wants to see the Italian apples and pears pour in. I grant him that they are on quota at the moment.

Mr. Holt: Mr. Holt rose—

Major Legge-Bourke: Do we visualise, from the Amendment, that the hon. Member is interested only in lowering the tariffs and does not, I understand, want to affect the quotas? Is he trying to select the apples and pears for complete preference in the Liberal mind over any of the other fruits and vegetables which are protected by tariff? That would be the effect of his Amendment, whether he wants it or not.

Mr. Holt: Mr. Holt rose—

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has been springing up and down while I have been speaking. Does he wish me to give way now?

Mr. Holt: The hon. and gallant Member is very gallant. I wish that he were sometimes a little more gallant for the consumers in his constituency in the same way as he is on behalf of the horticulturists. Apparently, he leaves out the consumers entirely.
Why we suggest a 50 per cent. cut is because this means a much greater reduction in the protection to manufacturers than it does to the horticulturist. The whole basis of the argument is that if manufacturing protection were out by half, the cost position of everybody—farmers included—would be so greatly improved that they could well withstand the small reduction in protection which horticulturists would suffer.

Major Legge-Bourke: I wonder whether the hon. Member is right in saying that Surely, his Amendment imposes a flat rate of a reduction of 50 per cent. It is often easy for even the growers themselves to say "As far as I am concerned, I do not know whether the tariff is there or not", but they might have a very different opinion if it were suddenly taken away. Tariff support is often concealed to the home producer until an alteration to it is made and then he feels the change. It is then that he realises that the tariff was perhaps giving him more support than he thought. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bolton, West laughs. What he has not faced in putting down his Amendment is this. Does he believe that the British grower, or British agriculture as a whole, could today be allowed to sink or swin again without any protection whatever, either by subsidy or tariff protection?

Mr. Holt: It would not sink.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member knows very well what happened between the wars. He knows, too, that it was not until the 1932 Act, which allowed a measure of protection to be given against imports, that agriculture started to pick up again. He knows the state of depression that the industry got into between the wars because there was no protective policy.
Perhaps I am wandering a little far from the machinery Bill which this Measure originally was intended to be, but the hon. Member has injected into our proceedings a platform from which to embark on the old classical argument


of free trade versus protection. All I am trying to do is to face the logical consequences of the hon. Member's own words in the Amendment and in what he said today. It seems to me absolutely inevitable that the depression would begin again, and start through the horticultural industry which is composed mainly of men who are in a small way of business and least able to defend themselves.
The hon. Member talks glibly about consumer interests, and wishes that I would think of the consumers in my constituency as well as the producers. I do not believe that the Liberal Party will get away with that sort of demagogy. I do not believe that the consumers, whether in the city or in the village, are any longer willing to put up with encouragement to fight each other and abandon each other. Today, there is an understanding of the fact that if the British agricultural worker is to be paid a fair wage, it is absolutely essential that the country as a whole should support agriculture through the taxpayer in one form or another.
This talk about consumer interests from the hon. Member is merely a way of saying that the Liberal Party has learned nothing since the old "cheap food" days. The hon. Member is proposing deliberately to reverse the policy so as to make absolutely certain that a small, but very important, section of people shall be thrown to the wolves; that what are already very acute difficulties for them shall be made at least twice as bad. In my opinion, that would be the effect of this Amendment, were it accepted.
It would be better for an hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency to deal with the matter from the point of view of industry. I am trying to present the view of people who have relied on the Government in the past and made considerable increases in their production as a result of Government encouragement. I am attempting to put a case on their behalf and to persuade the Committee that they should not be thrown overboard now. It is all very well to talk about allowing the fresh wind of competition to blow. The hon. Member for Bolton, West should go out and grow tomatoes and see what happens. There are plenty of fresh winds

blowing on the horticultural industry at the present time. Competition for labour is a problem, to mention but one.
If the hon. Member wishes to bring down costs and to stop inflation, he should argue the case which I have put repeatedly to my right hon. Friend, the case for discrimination in trade. We must secure again the power to discriminate. Once we possess that power again it may not even be necessary to use it. But we abandoned it during the time when the party opposite was in office. That was a rueful day for this country, because once such a power is abandoned it is hard to regain it. That loss is something which is troubling the economy of this country. The Liberal policies advanced today by the hon. Member for Bolton, West make no sense whatever. They spell ruin for a number of defenceless people and I do not believe that the Committee would wish that to happen. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will reject this Amendment.

Mr. Green: I do not think we should spend long discussing this Amendment, because there are times when I seriously doubt whether the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) believes these things himself. I do not think he really imagines that this kind of policy could be applied, for example, to the important cotton industry in his own constituency. The hon. Member need only contemplate the danger to the confidence in that trade which is, in fact, being caused by duty-free imports from the Far East. That is a danger to confidence and a very serious danger.
I know that this is a difficult problem. It is stupid to deny that fact. A difficult problem already exists for the textile trade in Lancashire, but what is proposed by the hon. Member would make that problem much worse. He is proposing to halve the duty on Japanese textiles as well as having free imports from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. I do not think he has talked this matter over in public with his constituents. He may have done, but if so it would surprise me to know that they support this section of his policy.
I can assure the hon. Member that I speak as one who is not by nature or instinct a supporter of high tariffs. In personal and private dealings with the


Board of Trade over the years, when trying to represent the industry in which I work, I have never hesitated to advocate duty-free imports in the shape of a machine or a piece of technical equipment which I was not in a position to make or able to make as well as it could be made abroad. I do not think officials of the Board of Trade have ever found my concerns to be awkward when there is a suggestion that a little tariff bargaining might be done because of negotiations going on with interests in Sweden or some other country. I have never objected to a suggestion that it might be a good idea to reduce the duty in a certain case, and I am not a supporter of high tariffs.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is a director of a very big machinery firm, and his firm is able to sell its products in many parts of the country. Does the hon. Member really think that there is any reason why the type of machinery made by his firm should have any protection at all? The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he would not mind if the duty were reduced and that his firm would be able to sell in any part of the world. Why should the products of his firm receive any protection whatever?

Mr. Green: Because one company may be fortunate, through history or circumstances, to be able to sell its products anywhere in the world, it does not follow that every company in the country can do the same. I would not make such a selfish case as that.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to consider these figures. I understand that in 1956 the total textile imports into this country from other than Commonwealth countries amounted to about £62¾ million. About £26¾ million came from Commonwealth countries. We know quite well what is happening in the textile trade over some cloth coming in duty-free. Difficulties exist in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and are to be found as one goes further up the valley from Burnley to Nelson and Colne. There is a difficult situation for the people living in those parts. Why deliberately make it more difficult for them so quickly, suddenly and harshly, as would be the case were this Amendment accepted? Why should the industry be deliberately robbed

of the small amount of tactical advantage which may still be derived from the tariff? In my view, the tariff is a tactical weapon for the country just as the rifle is for the infantryman. An infantryman would look foolish with only half a rifle, and this country would look foolish with only half a tariff. Why abandon such protection as we have by committing an act of folly, as it will be judged by those countries which the hon. Gentleman wishes to persuade? Those countries would judge us to be foolish, and if the person with whom you are negotiating considers you to be a "mug", your negotiations with him will not go very well.
Those are things which the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and so I doubt whether he seriously means what is represented by this Amendment. I consider this to be a bit of "kite flying", a bit of advertising. Something has to be done, interest must be stirred up, and so the hon. Gentleman proposes this Amendment. But I do not think he seriously intends what is implied by it.
5.0 p.m.
Let me refer to a cardinal point. The hon. Member for Bolton, West says that we are in a very weak position. He thus pays a remarkable compliment to Her Majesty's Ministers. We have a higher standard of living than most other countries, and if we are in a very weak position for bargaining with them how brilliantly those Ministers must have performed their task of bargaining. Perhaps the hon. Member will come and say those things in my constituency.
As a matter of fact, we are in a quite strong bargaining position, because Britain is one of the most desirable markets of the world. We should not make our internal market too easy to grab for those who want to grab it, otherwise we shall transfer to other countries, whom the hon. Member wants to help, all this terrible slackness and softness of fibre of which he accuses British industry. The Canadian Trade Mission came here, believing that British industry needed a shock. It is the Commission which has had the shock, because it found much more bustle, enterprise, hard work, good relations between managements and men, high quality of products and design and ability to sell than it had suspected.
I ask the hon. Member not to join the chorus which is crying down the industrial effort of this country. There are ups and downs of efficiency and enterprise and indifferent sections of industry; even political parties have their ups and downs. Some of them come back into Government and some do not. It is not very sensible to indulge in that denigration when our exports are rising and our reputation in the world outside is very high. We have just had the Canadian Mission here, and it is surprised, and glad to be surprised, with what it has seen. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the British car industry, one of the most highly protected, has the finest export market of any car industry in the world.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Small as the tariffs on tomatoes are, I will not mention them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has already done so. The horticultural and agricultural industries would suffer very considerably if this very sweeping Amendment were adopted. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) held out the bait to agriculture that it would get forks, spades, fertilisers and tractors more cheaply. It is worth while to see how large those baits are and how much would be lost on the foreign forks, for example, if the farmer ever used them.
The foreigner cannot compete with the British tractor or, from the price point of view, with the hand-tools made by British industry. If that is not so, how does the hon. Member explain our success in exporting them? We are the biggest exporters also of tractors. This industry has been able to build itself up behind the tariff wall. Had it not had a good home market it would probably not be in a position to have the large production necessary for the export trade.
The hon. Member said that the prices of fertilisers were maintained at their present level by the fertiliser manufacturers. As this position is now being investigated by the Monopolies Commission, I will say no more about it. The duty upon combined fertiliser imported is roughly £4 per ton. Assuming that foreign manufacturers were not able to produce it more cheaply—there is no evidence that they can—every farmer would save about 12s. per acre of wheat sown, if he could get his fertiliser £4 per ton cheaper by removal of the duty;

but, of course, the duty is to be reduced by only 50 per cent. so he will get his fertilisers at only £2 per ton cheaper, which represents a saving of 6s. per acre.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The individual farmer would save nothing even then, because the difference in price of fertiliser would be taken into account in the February price review.

Mr. Harrison: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, on a point that I had overlooked. I was going to compare that position with what it would be if the industry were not supported. The farmer would lose the 10 per cent. protection on his production. A little arithmetic will show that the loss would be very much greater than the very small saving in the cost of fertiliser.
The hon. Member tried to hold over us the cheaper production costs of agriculture. Hon. Members who take that view must think their ideas right through and see just what the effect would be at the other end. Anybody who does so will come to the conclusion that it would be disastrous for agriculture if tariffs were removed, small as they are, and particularly on horticultural products.
Therefore I welcome the Amendment thus far, because it shows for certain the line of policy of the Liberal Party. I certainly hope that the Amendment will be most definitely rejected, because it would be disastrous to all sections of the horticultural and agricultural industries.

Mr. Douglas Glover: The case against the Amendment has been very well made out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison). The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) has already said that his ultimate object is to do away with tariffs altogether. In that case we should have no bargaining powers to get into the European market and Europe would have no further use for British economy. Our bargaining power would be gone.
As the President of the Board of Trade made very clear, the purpose is to use tariffs as a bargaining weapon. I do not believe in a high tariff wall, but I certainly do not think that we should throw the bargaining weapons out of the window.


If this country wishes to work for a freer trade throughout the world, as it has done during the last six years, and wishes to use the tariff weapon as a bargaining counter, I shall agree with it. But it should not be used as the Liberal Party suggest, with their usual lack of wisdom and what I might term their free trade Bourbonism; they never learn and never forget. The tariff weapon should be used as the Conservative Party intend—as an intelligent weapon for getting other people with more rigid ideas to free their economies in the interests of wider trade throughout the world. I should go a long way to support action of that kind.
I apologise for detaining the Committee even for so short a period, but I thought that the point about the European Free Trade Area negotiations, in particular, should be made.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): Most of the arguments against the Amendment have been made, but I should like to detain the Committee for a moment as there are one or two other points which should be placed on record.
During the Second Reading debate, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), with his leader beside him—a rare and significant event—told us that it was his policy to cut our tariffs in half. He said that he wished to see every single duty reduced by 50 per cent. Now he has put down an Amendment to that effect. He does this without considering whether we should get a single concession from any foreign country for such an immense uncovenanted benefit as would result from the Amendment. It would mean that the whole of the tariffs that we have on goods coming from countries as wide apart as the United States and Japan—all that protection—would be halved and we should get nothing in return.
The hon. Member said that we needed no bargaining weapon and that we could do it by persuasion. His words were that we should work to get other countries to reduce their tariffs, if we could. Of course, but what arguments should we have left? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) that we should have no chance at all of securing free trade with another country if we ourselves were already free trade. They would see no point in it.
I suppose that I should commend the hon. Member's courage, but I have always been rather doubtful whether the courage of a suicide is something which we should commend. It seems to me better and braver to accept the world as it is, to stick to realities, to avoid these fantastic notions and to try to make things better in the facts of the situation of our times.

Mr. Holt: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman at least would try to meet the argument which I put and which other speakers have not met. I pointed out that Germany had done precisely this. She has unilaterally reduced her tariffs notwithstanding the fact that during that time she has been carrying on negotiations for a Common Market and a Free Trade Area. She does not think that her bargaining position would be imperilled.

5.15 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: I could not help smiling when the hon. Member spoke about transformers in Germany and the low rate of duty. He does not know much about these things. There is a ring in Germany, and they do not open any tenders to foreign firms. It does not matter whether they have a tariff or not. That is the kind of case in which it is no good quoting from books. One has to talk to the industrialists and see what they say.
I want to give only two examples to show what would happen. I will not refer to agriculture, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) have put their case so well. Instead, I will deal with the textile trade, which was the subject of an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green). My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There we have a range of duty from about 7½ per cent. to 20 per cent. on cotton textiles from non-Commonwealth countries. The textile industry is having a hard time, and it is one of the industries which very properly is anxious—I believe over-anxious—about the result of the creation of a Free Trade Area. If we cut the industry's protection in half before we start the general dismantling of our tariffs, then if we achieve the Free Trade Area the result will be that the baseline from which British protection will gradually be stepped down


will be half its present level. I am certain that if the hon. Member makes that argument in Bolton he will get a very forthright answer.
There is a much stronger and more serious consequence to the Amendment. It would compel us in a wholesale manner to break faith with the Commonwealth. We have undertaken in all our agreements with Commonwealth countries and in respect of very many products to guarantee to them specified margins of preference. It must be obvious to the Liberal Party, as it is to anybody else, that if we cut in half both the most favoured nation rate and the British preferential rate, then the margin of preference would be much smaller than it is now. Many Commonwealth goods come into this country free of duty, and if we adopted the Amendment the Commonwealth would get no advantage at all but all their competitors in foreign countries would have the present duty on their goods halved. We could not do that without breaking solemn engagements all round the Commonwealth.
I ask the hon. Member how he thinks we could hope to make a success of next year's Trade and Economic Conference with all of the Commonwealth if we entered it having dealt this blow to the Imperial Preference system?
I therefore feel that the Liberal Party ought to take more care about what they say. Their Amendment is not only against the interests of our domestic industry but runs completely against our whole Commonwealth policy. I hope that he will give the Committee a chance to test what I regard as a disastrous proposal.

Mr. Douglas Jay: It is an excellent thing that we have one voice raised in the House in favour of old-fashioned free trade, and I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) that some of these protective tariffs may be too high, particularly where they fall on tools of trade such as construction machinery, about which some industrialists have been writing to hon. Members. Possibly fertilisers may be another case.
It may well be wise for the Government to look at some of these tariffs to see whether they are not higher than they

need be. Indeed, the case for a reduction in the duty on machinery and machine tools is probably very much stronger than that in horticulture and textiles. We must remember that tomatoes are not the only things produced in this country, even though they are important. I am a grower of tomatoes, but I recognise that there are many other things on which these duties fall.
In view of the furious onslaught on the hon. Member for Bolton by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bolton, West will not find a Conservative candidate standing against him at the next General Election.
Despite these comments, I have no sympathy at all with the Amendment as he has placed it on the Order Paper. Whether these tariffs should be higher or lower, surely they should be altered by the Government at the time as a matter of Government policy in view of the merits of the industrial situation here and the negotiating position with other countries. To take a blind swipe and say that none of these duties should be higher than some figure laid down by law would be foolish and injurious.
I know that the hon. Member thinks that all Governments are protectionist and that all Governments are wicked and therefore does not trust them to act in an intelligent way in the future, but no doubt that is because he has no expectation of seeing a Liberal Government in his life-time. We share none of these views, and I therefore could not advise hon. Members to support the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in line 9, after "Kingdom", to insert:
to the preservation of full employment
Our intention in this Amendment is to add the phrase "full employment" to the other phraseology which lays down criteria which the Board of Trade will have to look at in varying protective tariffs. As the Bill stands, those criteria include in Clause 1 (2)—
…the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom, to the desirability of maintaining and promoting efficiency of production in the United Kingdom and to the interests of consumers.
Surely that is a rather one-sided and clumsy collection of words if we omit


full employment at the same time. I cannot see what would be the use of promoting external trade and "maintaining and promoting efficiency" if we were not successfully promoting full employment at the same time. I do not see why the President should wish to leave these words out. Indeed, I hope he will say that he will accept the Amendment and that we may continue the moderately bipartisan fashion so far shown in our discussion of the Bill.
If the right hon. Gentleman insists on leaving these words out, he must arouse some suspicions on this side of the Committee about the attitude of the Government to full employment as a first priority in our economic policy. The Chancellor went to Washington in September and told a number of international bankers, American officials and others that the Government no longer regarded the preservation of full employment in this country as of equal priority with the maintenance of a sound currency. He said, or implied, in one or two speeches that full employment in future was to be subordinated to the objective of a sound currency and stable prices. That suggests to me a certain attitude of retreat by the Government from the full employment policy which, I thought, we had all adopted at the time of the White Paper on Employment Policy in 1944.
If the President is not willing to include these words in the Bill, the presence of which I should have thought would be at the least innocuous and the absence of which may well be harmful, that would inflame some of the suspicions we have about the intentions of the Government. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) accused me of inconsistency because I said I did not believe the Import Duties Act, 1932, was responsible for the reduction of unemployment after that year but at the same time thought full employment was one of the criteria to be taken into account in various tariffs. If he believes there is inconsistency there he has not thought very seriously about this problem. I do not believe we can promote a general high level of employment in an economy suffering from all-round unemployment by protective tariffs, and certainly we shall not protect the standard of living. I do not believe that was done after 1932,

but I do believe that there might well be local employment problems for which an alteration of tariffs might be very relevant and influential.
Certain areas in this country are highly dependent on one particular trade. Dundee, with jute, is the most obvious example, and tinplate in West Wales is another. It might well be that if there were a threat of unemployment, as there has been in the past, which was almost chronic in the Dundee area, it would be desirable for a time to impose a heavier level of tariff for employment reasons, if only to give time for the Government to do what they ought to do in those circumstances—bring new industries to the area, which no doubt would be a permanent long-term solution. I do not see why we should preclude ourselves from acting in that way.
In an intervention on Second Reading, the President said that we really need have no anxiety about this because the point about employment was entirely covered in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, which says that import duties are to be varied
with a view to affording protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom.
In effect, he was arguing that if it were ever necessary to act in order to maintain employment that would be covered already by the words "protection to goods." He may be right or he may be wrong. I can see that that might be argued either way. I am not fully convinced that the phrase, "protection to goods", would fully cover what we have in mind. If the President was right, I ask him what harm there could be in putting in these words and making quite sure. If he was right this Amendment would not harm the Bill, and if he was wrong it would make the Bill mean what he says it means.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to reaffirm the sincerity of the Government in their adherence to a full employment policy, he has a chance to do so by accepting the Amendment, or something in very similar terms.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I hope the President will accept this Amendment, or one similar to it. In supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I am of course mindful of what he said when he declared that there are some parts of the country which depend essentially upon


one industry. He mentioned Dundee and jute. It is true that the greatest concentration of pottery manufacture in the world lies in the three constituencies of Stoke-on-Trent and in North Staffordshire generally. We are very dependent on that industry, as I am sure the President knows.
We are also subject to competition from other parts of the world. We would not be nervous about that were that competition based upon a standard of life similar to that which our own workers enjoy. Where, however, the standard of life of competing countries is lower than that which we enjoy, it is apparent that we may suffer, and do indeed suffer, difficulty. I will put it no higher than that at the moment. If that be accepted, it may well be that we fall into this subsection and consideration as to the type of import duty should be given to this particular industry as being a special case. When one looks at the subsection, the three criteria at first sight appear to be complementary, but I am not sure that that follows when we look at it more carefully, nor whether there is not indeed some antagonism existing in the three. For example, there is first,
the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade.
Then there is:
the desirability of maintaining and promoting efficiency of production.
and, thirdly, we have:
the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom.
The first two, I am sure, are complementary and run together, but the interest of consumers in our own country, some people might think, are best met by allowing imports to come in as the absent Liberal Party would like.
Before the war, the Japanese used to send to this country outer covers, tyres, for bicycles which were sold by Woolworths for 6d., and an inner tube, wrapped up beautifully, was also sold for 6d. Perhaps it could be argued that that was in the interest of our consumers, but inasmuch as our consumers in this industrialised country are also workers, one can see that they were thrown out of work and one cannot consume very much when, as a result of being thrown out of work by compet ition of that kind, one has nothing to spend after spending on what is necessary for bare subsistence.

That is a fair way of putting it. We must be careful and reasonable, and I shall be delighted to hear the President of the Board of Trade saying what he said previously, that we should not take it from books but look at the facts as they are and see the world as it is.
5.30 p.m.
If we are facing serious competition from abroad, in some cases it may be because the industry competing favourably with us, that is to say, to our apparent detriment, does so because it is better rationalised, better organised and more productive. Where that is the case, we have no right to grumble, because in those circumstances it is our duty to put our own house in order. However, if we are at a disadvantage because the workers in another country have lower wage rates and a lower standard of living, we ought to protect our own workers.
If manufacturers in the countries competing with us are prepared to accept profits lower than those which our manufacturers are prepared to accept, we should look to our own concern to see whether we are taking too much out of the industry. If our competitors are offering better designs, better delivery and better packaging, it is absolutely essential that we should look to our own affairs and improve our own processes and techniques of manufacture and delivery.
We have had some experience of suffering at the hands of the present Government. I do not blame the President for this, but some time ago it was thought desirable to increase Purchase Tax on pottery. That had a most unfortunate effect on us. We suffered unemployment, losing some thousands of our skilled workers. At the time we warned the Government quite passionately what would happen, and what we warned them against did, in fact, happen. Through losing our skilled workers, we were not able to divert a greater proportion of our manufactures into the export markets. A healthy export trade is dependent on thriving home sales.
We are now faced with the fact that, having lost our workers, when we are receiving more orders than we can satisfy the workers are not available. In the pottery industry there are many more vacancies than workers to fill them because we have not been able to get


the workers to return. It has been a deplorable and unhappy experience for us.
In North Staffordshire, we have suffered a greater measure of unemployment than has the rest of the country—it was recently twice as high as the national average—and for that reason we regard the Amendment as important and would be gratified if the Government accepted it. For us it would mean that some note was being taken of the human as well as of the other factors involved in our economy. I gladly support the Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The real case for the Amendment is to be found in an observation made by the President of the Board of Trade on 2nd December, when he intervened in a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). My right hon. Friend was pointing out the desirability of putting in the Bill some provision to support full employment, and he was making the case which he has made this afternoon. The President of the Board of Trade made what I thought at the time was a very odd observation. Having looked at it again, it seems to me odder still. He said:
The right hon. Gentleman"—
referring to my right hon. Friend—
has possibly not seen that in Clause 1 (1) we begin by saying:
'…with a view to affording protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom…'
That is really designed to cover it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 49.]
As my right hon. Friend said at the time, he obviously noticed what was said in that subsection (1), but it is fairly clear that the President of the Board of Trade had not noticed it or, at any rate, had not noticed its significance, because it is a very curious thing.
As the President said, subsection (1) begins by saying:
The Import Duties Act, 1932, shall cease to have effect, but with a view to affording protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom the Treasury…may…
do so and so. In other words, the whole scope, object, purpose and definition of the Clause hangs upon those words which the President of the Board of Trade quoted:
…with a view to affording protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom.

I put down an Amendment to omit those words, but it was ruled out of order, as to omit those words would be an extension of the scope of the Bill. That having been brought to my notice and, therefore, to the notice of the Committee, it seems to me to raise a very serious matter. It now follows that in future the Board of Trade will be able, in imposing import duties, to act only to afford protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom. At the same time as we do that, we repeal the Import Duties Act, 1932. The Committee should, therefore, be reminded of the operative words of that Act, so that we may have in mind the departure which we are now making.
The relevant Section is Section 3 which is in terms very much wider than those of the Bill which is to be substituted for it. Section 3 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, says:
…which, in their opinion, are either articles of luxury—
and I shall say a word about that in a moment—
or articles of a kind which are being produced or are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to United Kingdom consumption…
Let us be clear and have an explanation why, in what the President has described as a mere tidying-up Bill, we are now cutting to a very serious extent the whole basis on which future import duties can be imposed. They can in future be imposed only to afford protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom.
I imagine that it is deliberate policy that has led the President of the Board of Trade to deny himself power in future to impose import duties affecting articles of luxury whether such goods are being manufactured in this country or not. I imagine also that there is some reason why the President of the Board of Trade has omitted from the present Bill power to impose import duties not only to protect goods produced in the United Kingdom but also to protect goods which may be produced in the United Kingdom and which our tariff and economic policies may decide in future should be produced in this country.
That, of course, is where this question of full employment arises. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that the words to which he drew attention are


adequate to meet the point which my right hon. Friend raised, I must say in all sincerity that I do not think they are. I think they might have been if the President had included in the Bill the words in Section 3 of the Act of 1932.
As I said on Second Reading, we are in the dark about the Government's whole tariff policy. We do not know what are their intentions towards the European Common Market or the Free Trade Area. Therefore, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can complain if we look at the provisions of this Bill with a certain amount of suspicion, and if we make serious and sincere efforts to improve it in order that not only this Government but future Governments may be armed with adequate powers to carry out an intelligent and coherent tariff policy.
With all respect to the Liberal Members of this Committee, who at the moment are conspicuous by their absence from the Chamber, we have moved rather far from the days of 1932 when these matters of tariff policy had to be considered on a basis of tariff reform and free trade. Today there is not all that distinction between import duties which are imposed for protective purposes and fiscal duties which are imposed for revenue purposes. One day we may think it almost an aberration that we have a Budget imposing duties on tobacco and a lot of other imports and at the same time we have a separate Import Duties Bill which will enable the Government to impose import duties by Statutory Instrument from time to time. I hope that we shall at some time have a debate on the proper co-relation between the two.
5.45 p.m.
It seems to me that this is the moment, for those of us on this side of the Committee who attach great importance to our economic policy being directed with a view to maintaining full employment, to insist that the Amendment is written into the Bill. So far I have not heard a word, either on Second Reading or today, which even suggests any answer to the reasons put forward by my right hon. Friend. We know that the President has been responsive to other suggestions which were made on Second Reading both from these benches and from his own benches. I hope he will

not resist this Amendment in any preconceived doctrinaire attitude but will realise that this Amendment is put forward with very genuine motives and the genuine desire of improving the Bill.

Mr. John Cronin: I should like to express my full concurrence with the excellent arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) with his usual splendid legal acumen. I should like to draw attention to a few considerations which may enhance the desirability of this Amendment.
There is now, both in the short-term and in the long-term future, a very real danger of unemployment. In the short-term we are menaced by the possibility of an American recession with a rather sinister fall in the prices of primary commodities, which makes it likely that the primary producing countries will not be able to afford our exports, thus causing unemployment in our export manufacturing industries. There is also the Government's present economic and fiscal policy, particularly the Bank Rate and the diminution of investment, which is seriously hampering industry. On top of that, unhappily, with the Government's present economic policy we are menaced by the constant possibility of some serious balance of payments crisis which might cause serious unemployment again.
In the long term we must bear in mind that if there is some substantial agreement about disarmament between the Western countries and the Communist countries there may be a big decrease in the United States' anxiety to keep a careful eye on the economic future of Western Europe, with a consequent increase in unemployment. It is also possible in the long-term future that the primary producing countries will become more or less saturated with capital goods for export. Probably the most serious of all is a great diminution in investment in this country which will certainly be destructive of our competitive power in years to come. All these factors may cause a serious diminution of employment both in the short-term and in the long-term future.
There are only certain rather circumscribed cases in which a tariff can substantially help employment. I think we are all generally familiar with the


fallacy that simply by raising a tariff one can prevent unemployment. We all know this happened in the 'thirties, and that by raising a tariff we got retaliatory tariffs in other countries with a consequent fall in employment, including employment in our export manufacturing industries. Therefore, as a means to prevent unemployment of a general nature, the powers given by this Bill would not be very helpful.
I think, however, that the important principle here, which was mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade earlier as well as by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover), is that this Bill gives us a very important bargaining position. If it is written in the Bill quite clearly that these powers can be used to maintain full employment, countries which may be tempted to raise tariffs against us will be warned off, fearing reprisals. To add these words to subsection (2) will have a tremendous psychological effect. The very best thing in bargaining is to let one's opposite number know exactly what one is bargaining with, and I can think of no better way to make it clear than to insert these words in the principal, dominating subsection of the Bill.
Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pointed out, the powers conferred by the Bill will be very valuable in preventing localised unemployment, such as he mentioned has occurred in Dundee, or as has occurred, for instance, in Northern Ireland and in Lancashire. Obviously, one can always use the power of increasing a tariff to relieve localised unemployment. It is desirable also that the powers should be used to maintain employment in industries such as agriculture and horticulture where there are non-economic reasons for maintaining a high level of employment, where it is important from a strategic standpoint to maintain high standards of skill. The powers are limited, and the principal effect of the Bill is largely psychological as far as preventing other countries from raising their tariffs goes.
I commend to the President also the good effect which the insertion of these key words may well have upon the general mistrust which people have for

the Government today. It is, of course, no part of the Opposition's business to assist the Government electorally, but when the general mistrust by the country of the Government is causing widespread industrial unrest and serious economic dangers, then an enlightened Opposition such as exists on this side must, obviously, help the Government. I earnestly beg the President to insert these very words to make it clear beyond all doubt that the Government are concerned about full employment. The unions regard the Government with considerable doubt and suspicion. As the last few by-elections have shown, the country regards the Government with similar doubt and suspicion. Here is a way by which the Government can, beyond any doubt, make it clear that they are concerned about full employment.
I hope that the President will accept the Amendment. Whether he accepts it or not will be a real test of what sort of Minister the President of the Board of Trade is. Will he accept the obvious political implications or will he reject the Amendment merely because it has not passed the somewhat exacting test of having been thought of by his own Department? I hope that he will accept it. If he does not, I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide against him.

Sir D. Eccles: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) quite correctly said that full employment is a main object of British policy. That has been agreed by all post-war Governments and is, I think, agreed by all parties in the Committee today. I should like to tell him that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about full employment when he was in Washington was that he had come to the conclusion that, if we were unable to defeat inflation in this country, we should be unable to maintain full employment, and it was because we could not go on having full employment unless we had taken a grip of inflation that he proposed his financial measures.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is not quite what The Times, at any rate, reported that his delegation had said. According to the report in The Times, The Chancellor's


delegation in Washington said that, in future, full employment would be subordinated to a sound currency as an objective of the Government's economic policy.

Sir D. Eccles: I was one of the delegation. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in all the conversations I had or heard, we said what is our firm conviction, namely, that we should not be able to keep full employment in this country unless we keep our money sound, and we must do that first.
It is part of the national interest that we should maintain full employment. In Clause 1 of the Bill, where we ask for very wide powers, it is necessary, I feel sure, that Parliament should define those powers in a proper manner. Otherwise, the real object of the Bill, which is to rewrite our protective duties, would be greatly extended. Those powers have nothing to do with Revenue duties there are other reasons for putting on import duties, perhaps, but this Bill is essentially structural, to deal with the protective tariff. We think that the way to put that in the Clause is to say, as we do here,
…with a view to affording protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom the Treasury on the recommendation of the Board of Trade may, if it appears to them expedient in the national interest…
In other words, the overriding objective of the protective tariff is to protect the goods and to do so when it appears to the Government to be in the national interest. By that I mean full employment in the economy as a whole.
The difficulty which I see about the Amendment—and I have thought very carefully about it—is that it might be taken, and, indeed, in view of some of the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, would be taken, I think, to mean not full employment as a national objective but the preservation of employment in a particular industry or, as they said, in a particular area. I am certain that it would be wrong to commit the Board of Trade to any proposition whereby, when considering an application for an increase in duty, the Board had to take account of the level of employment in that particular industry. I say that for this reason. The more successful we are in maintaining full employment throughout

the economy, the more necessary it is not to freeze the pattern of industry but to encourage new industries to expand, drawing their manpower from those whose fortunes are declining.
It was of interest to me that the right hon. Gentleman should cite the old hand tinplate mills in South-West Wales. That is an excellent example. There is, no doubt, a serious problem there. Why? It is because the two continuous strip mills at Trostre and Velindre are so much more efficient and use so much less labour that the old mills are going out of production. But what on earth could we do by a tariff to protect those men in South-West Wales? We do not import tinplate. We are large exporters of tinplate. The Amendment really has no relevance whatever to the Bill. If we want to help those men, as indeed we do, we must use the Distribution of Industry Act and the powers we have positively to bring employment into the area. I am trying to do so, and very difficult it is but a tariff has nothing to do with a situation of that kind.
6.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Dundee. I wonder if he knows that even a 100 per cent. tariff would not help people in Dundee? The jute industry in Dundee is protected by other means, and it is again a very difficult case. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) cited the pottery industry. Does he know that the import duty on pottery is only 5 per cent.—almost no protection at all—and that the volume of imports of pottery, compared with the total consumption in this country, is also 5 per cent.? The pottery industry gets on very well, and it does not, I suppose, except in some special lines, suffer much competition from abroad.

Dr. Stross: I did not want to take up too much time, and therefore I did not speak about special lines, but I am delighted that the President has them in mind. I know that he must be aware that in certain fancy goods and in figure making, in which whole families work unconscionably long hours in some countries abroad, we have no true protection, and that the position may get worse.

Sir D. Eccles: When the hon. Gentleman was speaking earlier, he was really


talking about Purchase Tax, and not about import duties, as I think he will see when he looks at his remarks in HANSARD.
What really matters is a high level of jobs in the economy as a whole, and the modern instruments for achieving that are monetary and expansionist, and we must use them with regard to employment in other countries as well as our own. A tariff, on the other hand, is essentially restrictive, and it shifts unemployment, if we like, from one country to another. It really is not a good weapon for this particular purpose.
I am very anxious not to give the impression abroad that this country is so old-fashioned as to want to use the tariff for the purpose of maintaining employment in any particular industry. We are aiming at a Free Trade Area in Europe in which full employment is to be an explicit objective, but it would defeat the purpose of that Free Trade Area if we used the tariff to protect employment rather than go in for more modern methods of maintaining effective demand throughout the area. By that I mean good debtor and good creditor policies, always seeking to expand a market where it shows signs of weakening by expansionist methods and not by the restrictive one of the tariff.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) said that we might be in danger of a recession coming from America; or, further ahead, he said that disarmament might cause a number of engineering firms to lose their orders. How could we do any good for employment in those firms by the use of the tariff? If tanks are not being made in certain factories because orders are no longer placed there, it is no good putting a tariff on tanks. We have to find some new form of expansion, some new orders or investments or something of that kind to take up the capacity.

Mr. Cronin: No one would contest the President's argument that we cannot put a tariff on tanks, but, obviously, the armaments industry has secondary effects on other industries, and in those industries the tariff will be useful.

Sir D. Eccles: It really comes to the same thing. The hon. Gentleman says "Raise your tariffs on all the engineering

industry and it will help you when you cancel or abandon orders for that portion of the engineering industry which is working for the Armed Forces." I assure him that it would not work. What would be required, if there were a serious recession in trade of that kind, would be measures of reflation, which I think is the usual word for putting in more money to see that demand is equal to the resources.
Therefore, while I very fully appreciate all the thought that is behind the Amendment, and while I repeat that it is as much the policy of the Conservative Party as of the party opposite to seek ways and means of maintaining full employment, I think it will be very dangerous to spell it out in this Bill, simply because the tariff is not the instrument to which in our day we look and to which other countries are looking to preserve employment in particular industries or areas.
It is because I see that danger, which has nothing whatever to do with quarrelling with the objective of full employment, that I would advise the Committee not to include these words, and to accept the general assurance that they are covered in the first words of the Clause, which I quoted at the beginning of my speech.

Mr. Jay: I was very far from reassured by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. Of course, the main way to maintain employment is to maintain demand, but that does not rule out the possibility of there being some supplementary ways as well. The right hon. Gentleman said that if we put these words into the Bill, the Board of Trade might find itself compelled to raise tariffs in order to maintain employment in some area or industry, but that would not be the effect of these words at all. All that the insertion of these words would do would be to give the President of the Board of Trade the power to act on these grounds if he wanted to. As the Bill stands the Board is precluded from raising tariffs for that object—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, it is, because it is not stated in the Bill that it shall have regard to full employment.

Sir D. Eccles: Having some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's general idea, I took careful advice whether these


words at the beginning of the Clause would cover such an import duty, and the answer was "Yes." I will read them again:
…with a view to affording protection to goods produced in the United Kingdom the Treasury on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, may, if it appears to them expedient in the national interest…
and so on. It might appear to us to be in the national interest for reasons of employment. I think it would be very rare, but we should be perfectly entitled to do it. The right hon. Gentleman could not argue that it would be impossible to take the level of employment into consideration. It is quite the contrary.

Mr. Jay: The President is now arguing that it is in the national interest to promote full employment, and, as the words "national interest" are in the Bill, he may, if he chooses, act under the Bill in order to maintain full employment. If that is true, why does he put in all these words about—

"…the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom, to the desirability of maintaining and promoting efficiency of production in the United Kingdom and to the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom."

Surely, efficiency of production is in the national interest, the interests of consumers, I suppose, are in the national interests, and, indeed, the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom is also in the national interest. If that is so, I see no logic whatever in leaving out the phrase full employment on the ground that full employment is part of the national interest. As the President's arguments seem to me to have no logic, and as there is nothing to be gained by leaving out these words and nothing to be lost by putting them in, I hope the Committee will support the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 176.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[6.7 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Oram, A. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Balfour, A.
Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horace
Pentland, N.


Beswick, Frank
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brookway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.pncs,S.)
Royle, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dodds, N. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Thornton, E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Usborne, H. C.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, W. N.


Foot, D. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moss, R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)




Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Winterbottom, Richard
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon, A.



Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Woof, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Atkins, H. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E.&amp;Chr'ch)


Balniel, Lord
Heath, Rt. Hon, E. R. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barter, John
Hesketh, R. F.
Osborne, C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Page, R. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Partridge, E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peel, W. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Holt, A. F.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bingham, R. M.
Hope, Lord John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pott, H. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horobin, Sir Ian
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Channon, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Robertson, Sir David


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hyde, Montgomery
Roper, Sir Harold


Cooke, Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooper, A. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, R. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Speir, R. M.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Keegan, D.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Kershaw, J. A.
Storey, S.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kirk, P. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambert, Hon. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Deedes, W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leburn, W. G.
Teeling, W.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Temple, John M.


Duncan, Sir James
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Freeth, Denzil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gammans, Lady
McAdden, S. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wall, Major Patrick


Glyn, Col. R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Godber, J. B.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maddan, Martin
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wood, Hon. R.


Green, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Woollam, John Victor


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.



Grimond, J.
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mawby, R. L.
Mr. Barber and Mr. Finlay.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF IMPORT DUTIES BOARD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir D. Eccles: The most important Amendment before us, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, is that on the Notice Paper to leave out this Clause. I am grateful to Parliament for giving me a clear lead on the way to handle applications for changes in tariff rates. This is a piece of machinery in regard to which, whatever else we want, we must have the


co-operation of those who are to be affected, namely, industry.
There were three things that we might have done. First, we might have gone back to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and given to an outside body the power to recommend changes in an import duty. During the Second Reading debate I gave the Government's reasons why we must firmly reject a return to that Committee. I do not wish to weary the Committee by stating those reasons again I would simply say that in modern commercial negotiations the tariff has become a very powerful bargaining weapon. The Government must either keep control over tariff policy or see themselves severely handicapped in negotiation. I am confident that a Government drawn from any party, if faced with the multilateral commercial negotiations which have to be carried out nowadays, could not possibly accept a position where recommendations for increasing tariffs were outside their general purview. Therefore, we cannot go back to that.
Secondly, we might keep the whole job inside the Board of Trade. We did not propose this in the Bill, because there had been a purely informal understanding with industry that some sort of permanent machinery would be set up to replace the post-war system. I did not consult industry on the details of this machinery. I wanted first to hear the opinion of the House of Commons on the broad choice between a return to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and keeping the job inside the Board of Trade.
The third thing which it was open to us to do—and that is what I put into Clause 3—was to have an outside body confined to fact-finding in respect of tariff applications but given power to make recommendations on duty-free licensing and drawback applications. The House made quite clear on Second Reading that, whatever else hon. Members did not want, they did not like the half-way proposals in Clause 3. From the other side of the Chamber the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), and from this side my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) all urged

me to drop the Import Duties Board as constituted in the Bill.
There were voices, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) on this side, and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) who wanted to go back again to I.D.A.C.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: No. I was not prepared to accept a Committee which was not independent. If it were otherwise I preferred it to go.

Sir D. Eccles: I am very glad to hear it. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
After having heard the debate, I had a talk with the representatives of industry and I told them that, as there was no question of going back to an outside body with power to recommend, I was disposed to accept the advice to drop the Import Duties Board altogether. There are, of course, a few business men who believe that the old system would still work, but they did not press their case and the general view of representatives of industry whom I saw was that it was better to have no board than to have a fact-finding board only.
I am not, however, prepared to drop the Import Duties Board without making some improvements in the methods by which the Board of Trade has handled these tariff applications since the war. There is general agreement that the present system is open to criticism on two points. The public, and not least the applicants for a change, do not receive enough information about the reasons why applications are accepted or turned down and, secondly, there is concern over the length of time that the Board of Trade has taken to reach a conclusion on applications. I should hesitate to recommend the Committee to drop Clause 3 unless I could propose some means of meeting those criticisms.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think that my right hon. Friend should have made a little distinction in what he has just said. The criticism has not been of his Department causing so much delay but of what happens when the Department refers


back an application and the time that negotiations on the G.A.T.T. take afterwards.

Sir D. Eccles: There have been cases where part of the circumstances governing the raising of a duty has been that we must get it through G.A.T.T. That is a very good reason why we cannot leave it to an outside body, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall do our best to shorten the procedure and I will explain in a moment how we shall do it.
As to making public why the Board accepts or refuses an application, we must distinguish between two types of cases. Where an application for an increase in duty succeeds, the House of Commons will be asked to pass an affirmative Resolution. There will be an opportunity for a debate and the Government will have to give reasons for their actions. If hon. Members think that we have done wrong they can criticise us, and we shall have to give the background for the decision.
Then we have the more difficult case of an application for a change in duty which is refused. I have been unhappy over the silence which at present surrounds the reasons for such refusal. An applicant whose case has been accepted as prima facie worth investigating ought to know, unless there are security reasons to the contrary, why his application has failed. Therefore, I would propose that in future the Board of Trade writes to the applicant stating the reasons, and if the applicant wishes to publish the letter he will be at liberty to do so.
In some cases obviously he will not want to publish, because he will want to keep quiet about the reason why his arguments have not been found to hold water. But the choice will be his. He can publish if he likes. I do not want to put into the Bill an obligation to write letters of this kind which an applicant may or may not publish. Anyhow, for security reasons, we might not be able to give the applicant all the information; but we shall give him all that we can.
I shall ask the Committee to consider a new Clause laying upon the Board of Trade the duty to make an annual report to the House of Commons on the use of powers under the Bill. As this report is part of the alternative which I suggest

to Clause 3, I may be allowed to say that, subject to security reasons and the giving away of information about a particular industry which that industry does not wish to see published, we will give as full a review as we possibly can of what the Board has done under the Bill.
I notice the Amendment to the new Clause which is on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Islington, East and the hon. Member for Loughborough. We shall be able to debate that when the time comes but, of course, it is the case that a considerable proportion of the information that we shall get—and we have not the power to compel any firm to give us this information at all on a voluntary basis—might be withheld, unless the firms felt that the information was of so confidential a nature that they would be protected from publication afterwards. We must keep out of the report those parts of the information which are confidential, but in the report we will certainly give details of every application that has been advertised and what has happened to it and, where possible, the reasons.
Then there is the problem of the time taken to consider tariff applications. I cannot give the Committee any definite time limit that we shall set ourselves in future, because these matters vary so very much. They are sometimes very complicated and it is very necessary that they should be carefully scrutinised, because so many people's interests are involved. Not only must we take evidence from both sides but the applicant must have a chance to rebut the objections raised to his request.
It may well be that more of this work could be done orally and less by correspondence. I am looking into that and I am hopeful that by one means or another we can cut the time taken without reducing the thoroughness with which a case is examined. I can give a general assurance to industry that the Board of Trade will welcome its representations on all aspects of tariff applications. If they prefer talking to writing, we shall be very ready to see them.
6.30 p.m.
Dropping Clause 3 would mean that the duty-free licensing and drawback applications will, as now, be dealt with inside the Board of Trade. We have


today a consultative committee which helps us in this respect and which, I hope, will continue to do so. We do not need any statutory powers to set up such a committee, since we have one in operation already.
For all those reasons, I accept the view about Clause 3 which was put forward from both sides of the House during the Second Reading debate. The choice is clearly between going back to an independent committee, with sufficient powers to attract the right kind of people to sit on it, and keeping the job inside the Board of Trade where it has been done ever since the beginning of the war.
I am grateful for the compliments which have been paid to the Board of Trade from many quarters. En particular the farmers say they much prefer the job to be done inside the Board of Trade. It is unusual to get these testimonies, but tariffs affect a great many people and it is clearly necessary that we in the Board of Trade should look carefully at the way in which we do this work in the future, in order that industry may have confidence in the Government Department's fact-finding as well as in the decisions which in any case would have to be reserved.
I apologise to the Committee for speaking for so long and for causing hon. Members trouble by making a major change in the Bill, but what are Committees for unless one listens to those on both sides whose views, this time I thought, showed a remarkable consensus.

Mr. Jay: We must certainly congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on accepting our main Amendment to the Bill, even though the abruptness of his volte face is rather surprising. Although I hoped that my remarks during the Second Reading debate were reasonably persuasive, I never thought they were so brilliantly eloquent that the Government would immediately reverse the main proposal in their Bill. It is gratifying to hit the middle stump with one's first ball as it were. How much better if on some other and more controversial Measures the Government had shown the same spirit and had accepted the main Amendments of the Opposition. However, it is certainly a refreshing surprise to find that sometimes Government representatives listen to speeches in the

House of Commons and actually alter their legislative Measures as a result.
On the substance of this dilemma the difficulty is really that in changing these import duties the Board of Trade and the Treasury must finally take the decision. On the other hand, industry, very reasonably, feels that it wants opportunity for consultation and argument and, in a sense, an appeal against what may be proposed. What really decides me in favour of the alternative of putting the main responsibility on the Board of Trade is the following, and it is a similar argument to that of the right hon. Gentleman. We must either have something like the pre-war idea of the independent Import Duties Advisory Committee—which I gather even hon. Gentlemen opposite do not now advocate—or straight Ministerial responsibility. I have felt from the beginning that there is no case for a hybrid board which is neither genuinely independent on the one hand nor fully accountable to Parliament on the other. That is the worst of both worlds.
I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I think does almost everybody else, that we cannot go back to the old position because now it is not a matter of a straight 10 per cent. tariff all round, and some variations made on the ground of an individual argument of fact, and so on. It is more complicated. The entire level in each case is a matter of Government policy and of international agreements. Therefore, I do not believe that we can have the alternative of the independent board, and if we must have one or the other, that inevitably brings one back to the other alternative of placing responsibility on the Board of Trade.
It seems to me that this has two other advantages. First, Ministerial responsibility is absolutely clear and it follows presumably that we can ask Questions in the House of the President about what is going on, what he is doing and what he is going to do. Secondly, I would have thought that it must mean an economy and greater efficiency, for reasons which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) put forward during the Second Reading debate. If we are to have this outside body, whose precise volume of business cannot be predicted, we shall probably have more


manpower than is necessary, and we cannot switch it on to other business when not wanted as could be done if it were ordinary personnel within the Board of Trade.
I think also that we shall greatly simplify this Measure. It is not good legislation to have a Bill which devotes an entire Clause and a complicated Schedule to laying down the exact procedure, including what the deputy-chairman is to do when the chairman is not there, and all the rest of it. That is better left to organisation and administration than to legislation by the House of Commons.
The President has given us some new assurances. First, he is willing to write and inform the applicants of the reasons for rejection of their applications. Secondly, the Board of Trade is to make an annual report giving a certain account of its actions in this respect during the year. I am not sure what is to be the scope of it and I do not think that this quite meets the case put forward by industry for consultation and for an opportunity to make its case. If we are to reject the Import Duties Board there really is on the face of it a case for writing something into the Bill giving a statutory right to consultation, and an opportunity not merely for the applicants, but also possible objectors to the applications, to put their case before the Government.
I have received representations since the Second Reading debate from various bodies, including the Food Importers Association, which I am sure will be known to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), though he may not sympathise with their precise arguments. Quoting from their letter, they make the case in this way:
We feel that the public ought to be given as a right the facts behind proposed tariff changes and a reasonable interval to discuss them, particularly when such changes have an immediate effect on the cost of foodstuffs.
Also, the Federation of Construction Machinery Importers, leaving aside the particular grievance about the tariff on construction machinery, say in general that the Bill as it stands will allow the Board of Trade and the Treasury—
…without consultation with industry, to charge any import duty on any imported goods without the importer or the user having any right of appeal.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be possible to make it clear in the Bill that, before decisions are taken, an opportunity will be given either to the applicant or to anybody who wishes to raise objections at least to make their case to the Board? At this moment I do not profess to know exactly how that can be translated into legislative form. For instance, would it be possible to state in one of the early Clauses that there should be some form of consultation?
The main difficulty I see is that those who wish to make representations against a change may not be aware that some other interest has made an application to the Board. The first they may know about it, if I understand the Bill aright, is when the President lays an Order before the House of Commons.

Sir D. Eccles: Sir D. Eccles indicated dissent.

Mr. Jay: If that is not so, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will explain to us later. The substance of what I was suggesting is that it should somehow be made known to the public that an application has been made and is under consideration. I can well see the difficulty that it is not easy for a Government to say, "We are considering making a change in such and such a tax. Would anybody like to come and have an argument about it?" I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would be the first to point out the difficulties of the Government saying, "We are thinking of changing the Entertainments Duty in two or three months' time. Would anybody like to put forward their views?"
I see that difficulty. I do not think that we could lay a statutory obligation on the Government to say that such and such a change was under consideration. Would it be possible to make an announcement publicly whenever an application has been received for a change? If that is included in the Bill, I should be glad to have that assurance. It seems to me that that would be reasonable. If it is not, perhaps we can put down an Amendment on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot undertake to do that, no doubt we could have a hand in doing it from this side.
We have a considerable time before the Report stage of the Bill—I imagine that


we shall not consider it until some time after Christmas—and we should like to be assured that if we are removing what industry might have taken to be a safeguard in the form of this quasi-Import Duties Board—because Ministers and Governments change as we all know—there will be some written guarantee in the Bill that there will be an opportunity for consultation and representation for and against these changes.

Major Legge-Bourke: I shall be very brief. All I wish to say is a word of congratulation to my right hon. Friend for having, as it were, vindicated the hack benchers by this decision. It is not very often, and perhaps all too seldom, that we on the back benches feel that great decisions are taken because of what we say. I think that this a great decision and I would most warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking it.
On Second Reading I suggested various ways in which the Import Duties Board, as proposed, might have been composed. The further one went into those the more complicated the matter seemed to become. If the Board were too small there would be some people who would feel that they were not properly represented on it, and if it were too large it would be chaotic and unwieldy. The arguments being what they are for ruling out the possibility of restoring the original board, I fully appreciate and accept.
So far as I know, those most responsible for negotiating horticultural tariffs are absolutely satisfied with the machinery which the Board of Trade is providing by which they can put forward their applications. As I tried to indicate in an intervention which I made while my right hon. Friend was speaking, their complaint is about the delay that ensues after the Board of Trade has looked into the application and decided that it should be put to G.A.T.T. That is where delay affecting the horticultural industry sets in. I cannot say whether or how it arises in other industries. I want once again to congratulate most warmly my right hon. Friend and to thank him for what he has done.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I, like the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), do not propose to be more than a moment. I, also like him.

would applaud the decision of the President of the Board of Trade. Speaking as one who criticised the proposals in the Bill, I believe that the President has taken a wise and courageous decision after listening to the criticisms which have been made on both sides of the Committee. As the hon. and gallant Member said, this decision taken by the President has vindicated the value of Parliamentary debate; in this instance discussion of a matter of considerable general importance to the trading community, industry, and the general public. It takes a certain amount of courage for a Minister to change his mind on a matter of this importance and we all admire the right hon. Gentleman for having had the courage to do so.
We are all convinced that the decision is the right one. As he said a moment ago, there were two alternatives to his original proposal in the Bill. One was to scrap the Import Duties Board altogether and the other was to arm it with very much greater powers and give it almost the status of I.D.A.B. Speaking for myself, I think that either of those proposals would have been better than that originally contained in the Bill. Of the two alternatives, I infinitely prefer the one which the President has accepted of scrapping the Board altogether. That decision is in accordance with the best constitutional theory. It removes a body which would have had a very anomalous position. It enables the public and Parliament to know where responsibility rests, and it will make for better administration of the Bill. I join therefore in the chorus of thanks to the President of the Board of Trade on this occasion.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I detain the Committee for only a moment to say that I appreciate very much the action which my right hon. Friend has taken. I told him in rather crude terms during the Second Reading debate to take away his child and cut its throat, and very obligingly he has done so. I was concerned lest we appointed an Import Duties Board which would not have attracted the kind of men who would have commanded the confidence of industry, and which would have had a somewhat questionable influence, obviously making no impact on the problem, the members of the Board being put


in an embarrassing situation. In scrapping the Board my right hon. Friend has clearly taken the right course.
When I spoke on Second Reading on the desirability of abolishing the Board, I referred to the drawback and duty-free imports. I suggested that the Board should be constituted for the purpose of dealing with those applications. I am not quite sure from what my right hon. Friend said today whether it is his intention to do just that. I hope that it is. There is no doubt that industry is much concerned about what it considers to be the unfair judgments which are made on matters of drawback and duty-free licences. I realise very clearly that in many cases an industry takes a jaundiced view of the refusal of its own application or the granting of somebody else's application. There is considerable doubt and disquiet about many of the decisions.
If the Government will set up an advisory committee which will take from the Board of Trade the undesirable duty of vetting each one of these applications, an advisory committee representative of people in commerce and industry, I think that the Government will at once not only rid themselves of a somewhat undesirable load of work but instil a little more confidence in the decisions which are taken. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that he is intending to enlarge the scope of the present consultative committee and give it a larger part in reaching these decisions. If he does that, I think that he will be doing something of value to industry.
I conclude by thanking him for being magnanimous enough to recognise that the original proposal was not best suited to the conditions in which we find ourselves, and I hope that the Board of Trade will continue to enjoy the good will and esteem of industry in general.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: My right hon. Friend knows from my interjection that I fully support in every way the decision that he has taken not to set up the Import Duties Board. References have been made on both sides of the Committee to my remarks on Second Reading. I shall not weary the Committee with an explanation of what I meant if I was not clear. It is sufficient just to state once again that I wholeheartedly accept the decision taken, and that I

know it will be well received in a number of commercial and industrial organisations with which I have contact in the ordinary way of things.
However, as my right hon. Friend says, the Board of Trade is not left any less powerful. In fact, my right hon. Friend is more powerful in other matters. That worries me, because that perpetuates the exceptional powers which were given to the Board of Trade and the Treasury in 1939. I do not expect to win my case tonight, but I must say that I loathe like the plague legislation by delegation. Also, I do not like Statutory Instruments, affirmative or negative. One cannot amend them; one can only make a fuss about them; and rarely do one's efforts succeed to any extent.
I join most strongly, as I did on Second Reading, with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who was absolutely right in expressing the view, which I expressed on Second Reading, that industry feels that it still lacks the degree of confidence that it ought to have that there will be proper consultations before decisions are taken. This may be a very difficult matter, but, none the less, it deserves very close study.
The inevitability of discussions relating to the European Free Trade Area and the Common Market makes people nervous even if they accept what is proposed as in general good for the country. In these circumstances, any amalgamation or changing of legislation, while it may not, in the President's words, materially alter the position, contributes, to the state of nervousness of those people. If my right hon. Friend can do anything, by speech, or, if possible, by means of the Bill, to reassure industry that there will be full consultation, he will be doing something which will be vastly appreciated, and that in itself will add enormously to the statisfactory running of the machinery which must inevitably result from this kind of legislation.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) on the subject of the drawback and duty-free imported machinery. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that no special body was intended for that purpose and that the matter would be referred to the Board of Trade as hitherto. As to drawback—my right hon. Friend did not mention the


other aspect—I am not sure that that is sound, and I should be grateful if he would look at it again.
As to duty-free imported machinery, a matter of which I have more knowledge than I have about the other, there is a case for some assistance for the Minister of State, Board of Trade. There should be some machinery. I would not necessarily suggest a committee quite as formal as may have been intended before it was decided to withdraw this Clause, but there should at least be some panel of assessors or experts upon whom the Board of Trade could call to assist in making a decision. I do not think the arrangement at the moment, trying to gather information from firms which compete with the brand of machinery which a certain firm wants to import, is satisfactory. However straightforward those firms may be, that process cannot give quite the confidence industry has a right to expect in this very vital matter. Certainly it does not lead to speed of decision. I sincerely hope that something will be done in this respect. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, all the more so because I understood my right hon. Friend to say distinctly that no such thing was contemplated.

Sir D. Eccles: Perhaps I might reply briefly to the debate. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked me what the procedure would be and whether industry would have a fair chance of knowing what was going on. I think the answer is "Yes". We receive a large number of inquiries for changes in tariffs. Some of them are so far from being a case which one could take seriously—I was on the point of saying that they were frivolous, that they are not worth investigating.
However, when we think there is a prima facie case the matter is advertised in the newspapers and in the Board of Trade Journal and all interests are invited to make submissions for or against the proposal. I will certainly inquire whether industry considers that our present advertising of the applications is sufficient. I am very ready to consider whether there is any way in which we can assure the parties concerned that they will have full rights of consultation. My preliminary investigation leads me to think that what worries them is that they have, perhaps,

not always had the chance to argue the case themselves. I do not know whether that is generally correct, but I believe that one or two feel that way. I undertake to look into the matter. I am not clear how anything can be done, but if there is something that we can put into the Bill, we will do it. I cannot give an assurance because I do not know enough about the position.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the present practice of advertising applications results from some statutory obligation on the Board of Trade, or whether it is, as I supposed, a matter of administrative practice? If it is the latter, might there not be a case for making it statutory in order to satisfy industry?

Sir D. Eccles: If we made the practice statutory, we should have to advertise all the frivolous applications as well as the ones in respect of which we can see there is a case for investigation. It is precisely for that reason that I do not see how a provision can be put in the Bill.

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend said that the Board of Trade Journal publishes the intention. Is it not the case that every relevant trade paper advertises the intention and many of them make observations, and that a large number of national newspapers repeat the annoucement?

Sir D. Eccles: I thank my hon. Friend. I was under the impression that the advertisements went fairly wide. I am anxious to look at the arrangement and see whether it is all that it should be.
I turn now to the subject of drawback and duty-free imports of machinery. No one hears about a great many of these cases because they are successfully settled, but we get cases where the professional advice is in conflict. One se; of engineers may say, "This machine p, unique and ought to be imported duty free." Another set of engineers may say. "Something just as good could be made in the United Kingdom." I agree that it is occasionally very difficult to avoid considerable disappointment to those which want relief from duty.
Parliament has laid down that then: should be a duty on certain types of machines. Thus, if a certain citizen is to have a waiver from that duty, it is


a rather serious matter, because it means that he is being allowed to escape a general tax which has been imposed by Parliament. That is why I think that in the long run these very difficult cases have to be decided by Ministers, since it is a matter of the remission of taxation. I should like to build up the present consultative committee. I am looking into the matter. I think it is a good idea. I merely wish to assure my hon. Friends who have spoken about the matter that we do not need statutory powers.
7.0 p.m.
We have a consultative committee today, but the problem is whether it can take any of the burden from Ministers and whether it is possible to give industry a greater measure of confidence in the farness and justice with which these very difficult questions are considered. They entail a great deal of money for some people, and there are naturally great hopes and great disappointments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said that he would like to get rid of delegated legislation. In that case we would be able to alter duties only once a year, in the Finance Bill, and that might not be in the best interests. From time to time we want to be able to act more quickly than that.

Mr. Hirst: Normally it takes nearly two years to get a negotiated tariff, so there would not be a terrible delay if the matter were put before Parliament.

Sir D. Eccles: It could conceivably add another year to that. The House will have a chance to debate these Orders when they are made, so there is an adequate safeguard.
I repeat that I am grateful to the Committee for the way in which it has accepted the proposal to drop Clause 3.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 4.—(ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO CHARGE OF IMPORT DUTIES.)

Mr. Cronin: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out "chemically defined".

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the following three Amendments: page 6, line 10 leave out "either"; in fine 13, leave out "or (ii) saccharin"; in line 15, leave out "chemically pure".

Mr. Cronin: I do not intend to spend much time on this matter, but subsection (2) appears to be one of unparalleled obscurity, and it would be valuable to have some clarification. As both the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State have disappeared, I assume that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will reply to this debate.
I want, first, to know why the phrase "chemically defined" has been inserted. Apparently there is a discrimination against saccharin, dextrose, laevulose and hydrocarbon oils if they are separately defined organic compounds or a mixture of two or more isomers. There seems to be a certain amount of looseness in that, I can only recollect these things from my student days, and I have had to rely heavily on the scientific attainments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who has a more complete comprehension of these matters.
As I recollect it, an isomer is a substance which has the same molecular structure as another one, except that the atoms are arranged in the molecules in a different way. Suppose a chemically defined substance consisted of a mixture of two or more isotopes instead of isomers, would that alter the whole complexion of the subsection? I hope the Financial Secretary will make that clear.
Sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (2, a) also appears to be a discrimination against saccharin. What is the purpose of that? We know that the sugar industry is a very powerful friend of the party of which the Financial Secretary is a member, but we should like an assurance that no undue pressure has been exerted on the Board of Trade to discriminate against saccharin, which is an obvious alternative to sugar. Saccharin is particularly valuable to people suffering that distressing complaint, diabetes, and very useful to many people in all walks of life who are conscious of their increasing weight and who wish to reduce their calorific intake. It would be helpful if the Financial Secretary could explain that apparent discrimination against saccharin.
Subsection (2, b) appears to be a discrimination against dextrose and laevulose if they are chemically pure. One is given the impression that it is a bad thing to be chemically pure and that if they are chemically impure they will not have this


discrimination. We should be very glad if the Financial Secretary could make that matter clear.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has asked me to explain the effect of subsection (2). Subsection (1) re-enacts the existing provision whereby import duties and other duties—in this case we are concerned with revenue duties—are not, generally speaking, imposed on the same articles. There are, however, cases arising under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, where a key industry duty is higher than the relevant revenue duty, and therefore we must retain the power to impose an import duty which will maintain that protective tariff on these articles. Subsection (2) therefore sets out the articles subject to a revenue duty which also are or may be subject to a higher key industry duty.
For this general purpose there are three classes of article which fall within that description. The first two are bracketed together in paragraph (a) and they both fall within Chapter 29 of the Brussels Nomenclature, Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move and the reason for the adoption of the expression
separate chemically defined organic compound
is that that is the title of Chapter 29 of the Brussels Nomenclature into which all the articles on which paragraph (a) will bite are to be found. It was therefore convenient to use the same expression as occurs in the Brussels Nomenclature to pinpoint the particular chemicals in question. That is the reason for the choice of those words.
The hon. Member quite correctly explained the sense of the word "isomer" in this context. It is necessary to ensure that we do not exclude from the scope of the Clause a case in which instead of there being one such substance there are two, chemically identical, but structurally different forms of the substance included in the article in question.
There is no discrimination against saccharin. It is simply that there may be la case in which the key industry duty upon saccharin, so far as saccharin would fall within Chapter 29 of the Brussels Nomenclature, may be higher than the revenue duty and where, therefore, protection may require

to be maintained. For a similar reason the words "chemically pure" are necessary as an addition to paragraph (b) since it is only where those two substances mentioned—which I gather to be forms of glucose—are chemically pure that the key industry duty could in any case be applicable to them.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Can the Financial Secretary explain his last point? As I understand it, dextrose and laevulose would be outside subsection (2) if they were chemically impure; in other words, it would not be possible to impose any import duty in respect of those substances under the Bill. It is only when they are chemically pure that an import duty can be imposed. Can the Financial Secretary explain why there should be this apparent discrimination against the chemical purity of these substances?

Mr. Powell: Because it is only if they are chemically pure that they attract a key industry duty which could be higher than the revenue duty. In no other case can that arise.

Mr. Cronin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(RELIEFS NOT DEPENDENT WHOLLY ON DESCRIPTION OF GOODS IMPORTED.)

Mr. Cronin: I beg to move, in page 7, line 13, at the end to insert:
and similar goods are not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom".

The Chairman: It may be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 7, line 18, at end insert:
and if similar goods are not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom

Mr. Cronin: I am anxious to cooperate with the Minister of State in accelerating progress, but I feel a duty to move this Amendment. It appears that under subsection (2) goods will be exempt from import duties if they go straight to a shipbuilding yard for any purpose connected with ships. Precisely the same thing happens under subsection (3) when the goods are to be used for repairing the boilers in the engine rooms of ships.
That appears to me to be an unsatisfactory situation, because if the goods


were freely obtainable in this country, shipbuilders and ship repairers could still import them, simply on the ground of cheapness. In my own constituency of Loughborough we have a very fine factory, Herbert Morris's, which makes cranes. Suppose these cranes were available for the forward deck of a tramp steamer and the shipyard found it cheaper to get cranes from Holland, as might be the case on occasion. The firms which make cranes would have no protection whatsoever. They would have the cranes and would be able to supply them, but they would not be able to give delivery because they are not protected.
A similar situation arises under subsection 3. In Loughborough we have a very large electrical manufacturing factory, the Brush Electrical Engineering Company. Suppose they are supplying generators for ships. They could be undercut by Germany and Holland, because these two subsections completely deprive them of protection, I do not wish to labour the matter from a constituency point of view, but it seems—I hope the Minister of State will be able to explain this—that there is a strong case for making sure that these goods are not available in this country before they are permitted to be imported.
Similar considerations have crossed the collective minds of the Board of Trade. If one looks at paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule one finds that certain goods can qualify for relief, but there is a proviso—
…if similar articles are not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom…
It seems that this has occurred to the Board of Trade as far as aircraft parts, machinery for aircraft, scientific instruments and organic products are concerned. Why is there discrimination against parts of ships and goods destined for ships?
I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are very partial to the shipbuilding industry. The shipping industry itself received very extensive concessions in the last Finance Act. This is another very large concession giving them a wide choice of resources at the expense of British industry. If the Minister of State can give a satisfactory explanation and reassure us on this matter we shall not press the Amendment.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) moved his Amendment with great restraint. He mentioned his constituency interest in cranes. I have a rather sentimental feeling about the firm he mentioned, because on the only occasion in my life that I have been allowed to drive a crane it was one made in his constituency. It was a great experience.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make it necessary to establish, regarding each consignment of goods and materials used for shipbuilding or repairs, that there were no supplies in this country. This would bring the goods consigned to shipyards in line with the principle which, as he has rightly pointed out, is embodied in Clause 6. The purpose of the shipbuilding exemptions is entirely different from the exemptions in Clause 6. Clause 6 was designed to give relief from duty where the import duty is not having a protective effect, because similar goods are not available or because there are special reasons for a free import, such as research.
7.15 p.m.
We must be frank about the purpose of Clause 5. The exemptions in the Clause are to ensure that the interests of shipbuilding take precedence. The historic and present justification for that is to avoid hampering in any way the competitive ability of the shipbuilding industry, because the ships may be exported and because we feel, and have felt since 1932, that our carrying trade, both internationally and coastally, where there is competition from other nations, should be able to obtain its ships, and what goes into them, on terms which make them competitive with those of other countries.
I am sure the Committee will wish to accept the need for special provision for the shipbuilding industry and will not wish to withdraw this very convenient system of exemptions which has existed for twenty-five years and which is, in this case, the equivalent of the normal drawback that other industries enjoy. The result of the acceptance of the Amendment would be, to begin with, to impose an intolerable administrative burden on the shipbuilding industry and, I might say in passing, on the Board of Trade as well.
I think the hon. Member's Amendment is rather too wide to cover his own constituency interest only, but I would ask him also to consider whether it would be in the interest of those, such as crane-builders, who furnish supplies to shipyards and who are already the major suppliers, that this concession should be done away with. After all, this concession which we give to shipyards is also given by all the major foreign competitors of our shipyards. I feel that if this concession were in any way withdrawn it might in the long run react very unfavourably upon the interests of those who are supplying our shipyards at present.

Mr. Cronin: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the shipbuilding industry requires help competitively against other shipbuilding industries. Its order books are full for the next few years. I believe that shipbuilding costs per ton are rather less in this country than in most others, largely because of the price of steel. I see the point when it is said that there is danger of retaliation by other countries which might make the situation worse.
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(POWER TO EXEMPT PARTICU- LAR IMPORTATIONS OF CERTAIN GOODS.)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 19, to leave out subsections (1) to (3) and to insert:
(1) Subject to the following subsections, the Treasury may direct that payment shall not be required of any import duty chargeable in respect of any goods imported or proposed to be imported into the United Kingdom, if the Board of Trade are satisfied—

(a) that the goods qualify for relief under this section by virtue of any provision of the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and
(b) that in all the circumstances it is expedient for the relief to be given.

(2) The Treasury shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) of this section except on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, and any direction of the Treasury under this section may be given subject to such conditions as they think fit.

This is consequential on the decision to leave out Clause 3.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 1, leave out "Import Duties Board" and insert "Board of Trade".—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(POWER TO EXEMPT PARTICU- LAR IMPORTATIONS INTENDED FOR EXPORT.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 41, leave out "Import Duties Board" and insert "Board of Trade".

In line 43, leave out "that" and insert "the".—[Mr. Powell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(DRAWBACK.)

Amendments made: In page 11, line 36, leave out from second "the" to "be" in line 38 and insert:
Treasury may by order provide that drawback on exportation shall

In line 39, leave out "recommendation" and insert "order".

In line 41, leave out from "the" to end of line 43 and insert "order".

In page 12, line 1, at beginning insert:
No order shall be made by the Treasury under this section except on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, and".

In line 3, leave out "Import Duties".

In line 11, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

In line 23, leave out "recommendation or".—[Mr. Powell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PROVIS IONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO PART II.)

Amendments made: In page 12, line 39, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

In page 13, line 18, leave out from "conferred" to "then" in line 20 and insert "by or under that section".—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 46, leave out from "recommendation" to end of line 5 on page 16.—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14–16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(ANNUAL REPORT.)

As soon as may be after the end of each financial year, beginning with the year 1959–60, the Board of Trade shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the exercise during that year of the powers conferred by this Act with respect to the imposition of import duties and the allowance of exemptions and reliefs from import duties (including the power to vary or revoke orders imposing import duties or providing for any exemption or relief from import duties).—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause implements the statement made by my right hon. Friend when speaking on the proposal to delete Clause 3. It requires the Board of Trade to publish an annual report on the exercise of the functions conferred by the Bill on Government Departments, which in this context are the Board of Trade, the Treasury and the Customs and Excise. What we have in mind is that the annual report should contain a reasoned commentary on the action which the Government have or have not taken on tariff and drawback applications and any necessary statistical or other information on the exercise of the duty-free licensing powers.
On tariff and drawback applications, we shall in practice, as my right hon. Friend explained, confine the report to those applications which have been publicly advertised, for the purpose of giving interested parties an opportunity to comment. We advertise these cases when we are satisfied that there is a real case to be considered; but as my right hon. Friend explained, and as anyone who has been at the Board of Trade for a short time learns, there are a number of trivial inquiries which are not advertised because the applicants do not satisfy us that there is a prima facie case for investigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed new Clause to add:
and shall include in such report particulars of representations which have been made by traders and others to the Board of Trade for proposed changes in the imposition or rates of import duties and not accepted by the Board of Trade
When the President of the Board of Trade earlier this afternoon announced his capitulation concerning Clause 3 and—all credit to him for doing so—indicated that as a result of the criticisms made on both sides of the House he was abandoning his idea of having any Import Duties Board at all, he felt it necessary—I am sure, rightly—to say that he could not simply abandon the Import Duties Board without at least doing something, or trying to do something, to satisfy those sections of industry and commerce which in recent weeks have been pressing, not merely for the Import Duties Board originally proposed in the Bill, but a board armed with much greater power and, in particular, power to make recommendations and to publish them.
The new Clause, therefore, is the price the President of the Board of Trade is paying for the abandonment of the Import Duties Board. We do not think it goes far enough. When the President, in speaking on Clause 3, referred to his new Clause, he said that he had observed our Amendment and that it would have his consideration. I do not consider it satisfactory to leave the matter there, and I hope we shall hear that the Government will accept the Amendment.
I should like to explain the reasons why we think the Amendment is necessary. I have no doubt that the new Clause was very hastily drafted. It must have been drafted in the last few days as a result of the Government's decision to abandon the Import Duties Board. The President of the Board of Trade need not, therefore, feel that there is any reflection on him if he accepts the improvements which we are venturing to suggest.
There are two objectives in the Amendment. One is to satisfy industry and the other is to satisfy the public. Both of these motives should commend themselves to the President of the Board of Trade and to his right hon. Friend. It is recognised in the new Clause that there should be an annual report of how the Act is working year by year. We are


anxious that that report should be as fall and as informative as possible. The President of the Board of Trade has recognised that to ensure the harmonious working of the import duties scheme it is necessary to have the full confidence of industry.
It is necessary that the Board of Trade should not only take into consideration representations that are made for variations in tariffs, but should also satisfy industrialists that full consideration is being given to their representations. That task will obviously be greater without an Import Duties Board than it would have been had there been a board, how-even attenuated its powers. If, therefore, the annual report is to have the desired effect, we believe that it should give the fullest possible information of how the Act has been working during the year in question.
7.30 p.m.
I do not think it will be sufficient merely to state what powers have or have not been exercised. Those applicants who make representations and have their applications refused will be entitled to know the reason for the refusal, and the public are entitled to know. This is a matter of great public importance. I am not for a moment suggesting that decisions to refuse applications for tariffs will be wrong. They may well be justified. It may be the case that a number of applications for increased tariffs will be made by interested parties and will not be in the public interest.
I notice, for example, that the fruit importers take the view that there are far too many variations in the duties imposed on imported fruit. In that case the Board of Trade must weigh the interests of the consumer and the importer. I am sure that it is most desirable that the maximum amount of information should be given so that confidence in industry is assured, and in order that there should be the fullest information available to educate the public about how this is to work.
The addition of these words would remove from the Board of Trade any excuse for concealing the kind of information which we should like to see made available. As drafted, the new Clause merely imposes a statutory duty on the Board of Trade to make a report on the exercise of its powers. That is

a vague and loose phrase which may be interpreted at the whim of any Government almost as they wish. If the President of the Board of Trade is desirous of securing the confidence of industry this may be regarded as a test of his sincerity. There is no reason why he should fail to include in such report particulars of representations made which have been refused. It is, however, conceded that there may be security grounds for not including them. Communications of a confidential nature may be made by a trader who does not want the information he has given to be made public. Such matters should he respected, but subject to safeguards of that kind, I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a reasonable Amendment which it is possible for him to accept.

Mr. Cronin: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) about this excellent Amendment. There is general disquiet in industry over what is at present happening about representations concerning import duties. Like my hon. Friend, I have had representations from several industrial organisations which criticise the Board of Trade in forthright terms. As was pointed out earlier by an hon. Member opposite, it sometimes takes as long as two years to receive an answer to representations.
If the Amendment is not accepted, we shall have no check on the length of time elapsing between the application being received and the final decision. That appears to be highly unsatisfactory. Obviously, it is important that the nature of the representation and the full facts of the case should be available for public examination. As at present proposed this annual report will be somewhat obscure and consist simply of a list of decisions.
Before the war these matters were dealt with by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, a small body which received universal respect. It dealt with matters expeditiously and its reports were generally published. Everyone in industry then knew exactly where he stood. I appeal to the Minister of State to accept the Amendment. I am sure that the present Ministers will do their best to administer justice, but it is important that


justice should be seen to be done, and that there should not be a veil of security thrown over the situation.
Matters concerning tariff reform are usually subjected to strong and powerful lobbying and behind-the-scenes machinations. It is common knowledge that no part of industrial legislation has so much pressure put on it. It would be more satisfactory if the Board of Trade made clear what was its reason for accepting or rejecting any representation and I hope, therefore, that the Minister of State will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We have looked at the Amendment sympathetically but I regret that we cannot accept it. Between now and the Report stage we will see whether it is possible to improve on the wording. May I say that there was a marked change in the tone of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher)? A short while ago he spoke about the courage of my right hon. Friend and then almost in the same breath he referred to his capitulation.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I was congratulating the President of the Board of Trade on his very courageous withdrawal and capitulation.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I leave the words to speak for themselves.
We have already explained some of the difficulties in this matter. The first effect of the Amendment as it is drafted would be to require the Board of Trade to include particulars of all representations. It depends on what is meant by the word "representation". A vast number of inquiries from traders and others are received by the Board of Trade. It is true to say that the majority of them are dropped by the applicants before the Board of Trade reaches the stage of advertising them. I do not think it would interest either Parliament or the public to know of those inquiries. Many are informal and made in the course of conversation or over the telephone. It would set the Board of Trade the impossible task of deciding what was and what was not a representation.
It has always been intended that particulars of those tariff applications which have been advertised and rejected should be included. My right hon. Friend earlier

gave an assurance of the way in which he will promulgate decisions. The Amendment does not require the Board of Trade to give reasons for rejecting applications, and it is agreed that such a course is impracticable. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) may not be aware that before the war the I.D.A.C. never gave reasons for rejecting applications. It is impracticable. I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his proposed Amendment.

Mr. Cronin: The Committee did publish reports which, on the whole, satisfied the industries concerned.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We also shall publish reports. The point is that the Committee did not give reasons for rejection. In the light of what has been said, we shall see whether we can improve the proposed new Clause to meet the need that has been expressed. I hope that the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: The Minister of State was sympathetic, but disappointing. My hon. Friend, therefore, desires to press his Amendment in order to egg the Government on to meet the substantial point we are making on the issue of enabling industry to have a chance to make representations in good time before Orders are made.
The main grievance is that those who wish to make a representation against an Order and not in favour of it feel that they ought to have statutory assurance that they will have the opportunity to do so. The President of the Board of Trade said that if we put an obligation on the Government to publish every application it would lead to frivolous or insubstantial applications. Could we not get round that difficulty by laying it down in the Bill that within a certain period before an Order was laid, say two or three months, the Board of Trade must advertise the fact, not that an Order was to be laid but that an application of a certain kind had been received?
That would rule out frivolous applications because the Board of Trade would, in that case, have no intention of laying the Order. It would not be making any advertisement which, if the right hon. Gentleman is right, is not made now, but it would give statutory assurance that


before the final stage was reached in the House of Commons everybody would have had the opportunity to put forward his point of view. I realise that the case would not be covered in which the whole conception of the idea was in the Board of Trade and there was no application from outside, and that case might be difficult to cover. I am simply putting for-

ward these suggestions to meet the difficulties mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps he would consider them.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 146.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hastings, S.
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Holt, A. F.
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Benson, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Beswick, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Short, E. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Boardman, H.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Skeffington, A. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Sorensen, R. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Sparks, J. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Kenyon, C.
Steele, T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lawson, G. M.
Swingler, S. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Champion, A. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Clunie, J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacColl, J. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Wade, D. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Waffsend)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Cronin, J. D.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
West, D. G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheeldon, W. E.


Deer, G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mort, D. L.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moss, R.
Winterbottom, Richard


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grimond, J.
Parker, J.



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Pearson




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gower, H. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Currie, G. B. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Arbuthnot, John
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Ashton, H.
Deedes, W. F.
Green, A.


Atkins, H. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baldwin, A. E.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Balniel, Lord
Duncan, Sir James
Gurden, Harold


Barber, Anthony
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Barter, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Errington, Sir Eric
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bidgood, J. C.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hesketh, R. F.


Bingham, R. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, F. P.
Foster, John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyd Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Freeth, Denzil
Hope, Lord John


Bryan, P.
Gammans, Lady
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gibson-Watt, D.
Hurd, A. R.


Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Godber, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Philip
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)




Hyde, Montgomery
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Sharples, R. C.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Mathew, R.
Shepherd, William


Iremonger, T. L.
Maude, Angus
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Mawby, R. L.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Storey, S.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kaberry, D.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Keegan, D.
Neave, Airey
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Temple, John M.


Kirk, P. M.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Page, R. G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Partridge, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peel, W. J.
Wall, Major Patrick


McAdden, S. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pott, H. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McKibbin, Alan
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Hon. R.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Redmayne, M.
Woollam, John Victor


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maddan, Martin
Robertson, Sir David
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Roper, Sir Harold
Mr. Brooman-White.

Clause added to the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(CONSTITUTION ETC. OF IMPORT DUTIES BOARD.)

Question, That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill, put and negatived.

Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.

Sixth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO DRAWBACK RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Amendments made: In page 24, line 4, leave out "recommendation or".

In page 24, line 7, leave out "A recommendation or" and insert "Any".

In page 24, line 42, leave out "recommendation or".

In page 25, line 1, leave out "A recommendation or" and insert "Any".—[Mr. Powell.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Seventh Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 22, leave out paragraph 2.

In page 27, line 7, at end add—
(3) Where by virtue of any document issued under any of the enactments mentioned below in this sub-paragraph (which in relation to the former duties made provision corresponding to provision made or authorised by section five, six or seven of this Act) any goods would

have been exempt from any of the former duties, the goods shall be exempt from import duties.
The enactments above referred to are—

(a) section ten of the Finance Act, 1932;
(b) subsection (5) of section five and section eight of the Finance Act, 1936;
(c) section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1949;
(d) section eleven of the Finance Act, 1950;
(e) section twelve of and paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1951.—[Mr. Powell.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Eighth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Amendments made: In page 29, line 15, at end insert—


10 &amp; 11 Geo. 6. c. 39.
The Statistics of Trade Act, 1947.
In section nine, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the words "or to the Import Duties Advisory Committee", and the words "or Committee".

In page 30, line 12, at end add—


Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland


12 &amp; 13 Geo. 6, c. 9 (N.I.)
The Statistics of Trade Act (Northern Ireland) 1949.
In section seven, paragraph (c) of subsection (1).—[Mr. Powell.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

STANDING ORDERS

SCHEDULE (A)—AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS


5
Standing Order No. 57, line 8, leave out "shall be fifteen" and insert "of forty-five or more members shall be fifteen and of a standing committee of less than forty-five members shall be twelve".



Standing Order No. 57, line 36, leave out "twenty" and insert "the number prescribed by paragraph (1) of this order as the quorum".


10
Standing Order No. 59, line 5, after "committee", insert—



(2) For the consideration of



(a) bills referred to them for consideration in relation to their principle under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 60 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland);


15
(b) Scottish Estimates referred to them under Standing Order No. 61 (Special procedure for Scottish Estimates); and



(c) specified matters referred to them under Standing Order No. 61a (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland)



the Scottish Standing Committee shall be known as the Scottish Grand Committee


20
Standing Order No. 59, line 16, at end add—


25
(3) For the consideration of bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a standing committee or bills committed to the Scottish Standing Committee, the Committee shall consist of thirty members representing Scottish constituencies, who shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection in respect of each such bill and to whom the Committee of Selection shall have power to add not more than twenty members. In nominating members the Committee of Selection shall have regard to their qualifications and the composition of the House.



Standing Order No. 60, line 11, leave out "Standing" and insert "Grand".


30
Standing Order No. 60, line 16, leave out "Standing" and insert "Grand".



Standing Order No. 61, line 9, leave out "Standing" and insert "Grand".



Standing Order No. 61, line 12, leave out "Standing" and insert "Grand".

SCHEDULE (B)—NEW STANDING ORDER


MATTERS RELATING EXCLUSIVELY TO SCOTLAND


35
61A.—(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Scotland be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration, and if, on the question thereupon being put, not less than ten Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.


40




(2) If such a motion be agreed to, the Scottish Grand Committee shall consider the matter or matters to them referred on not more than two days in a Session, and shall report only that they have considered the said matter or matters.

We had a useful debate on this subject, and I said that we should listen to the views expressed in the debate and then put down the necessary amendments to Standing Orders. They are these.

I take first the Schedule (A) Amendments to Standing Orders. I can describe them quite shortly. The first two Amendments to Schedule (A) are to implement the Select Committee's recommendation on the number required for the Quorum and the Closure in Standing Committee, The House will recall that it is desired

for both purposes that the number should be 15 for a Committee of 45 or more and 12 for Committees of fewer than 45. I think that that corresponds with what I said in my speech in the debate and I hope that it will be agreeable to the House.

I turn next to Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to any points which may be raised on this matter. Schedule (B) creates a new Standing Order. It follows the Select Committee's recommendation


and provides that the Scottish Commit- tee should on no more than two days each Session be able to consider specified matters relating exclusively to Scotland. I need only remind the House of the points which we discussed before. These two days will be in addition to the six days each Session on which the Committee already considers Estimates. As suggested by the Select Committee, the procedure will be along the lines of the procedure under Standing Order No. 60 by which Bills are referred to the Committee on Second Reading. So much for the proposal for the two extra days, which I think found general favour in the House. I think it will work to the satisfaction of Scottish Members and will give more opportunity for ventilating Scottish ideas.

I come back to the third Amendment in Schedule (A), which provides that when the Scottish Committee is considering the principle of Bills on Second Reading, when it is considering Estimates, and when, on the two new days, it is considering matters referred to it, it should be known as the Scottish Grand Committee. For this purpose the Committee remains at its present strength. That, again, corresponds with the speech which I made and which indicated that we pro- pose to preserve the Scottish Grand Committee for the major purposes for which I believe it was originally intended. At any rate, we propose to retain it.

This very descriptive and time- honoured title of the Scottish Grand Committee reflects appropriately the dignity and distinguished purposes of the Committee. The Amendment adds, provides or furnishes an extra seal, an official seal, henceforward enshrined in Standing Orders. The dignity and patriotism of the Scots will, therefore, I think, be enhanced by the singularly statesmanlike attitude of the Government in proposing this Amendment.

The fourth Amendment in Schedule (A) provides that when the Committee is considering Bills at Committee stage the Committee shall consist of 30 Members representing Scottish constituencies, with not more than 20 other Members. That, too, is what I indicated in my speech, and it was commented on by hon. Members in the course of the debate. This does not exactly follow the Report of the Select Committee, but I think that in the

total number of 50 it keeps near the original conception of 45 plus five. I understand that 45 plus five makes 50.

The Committee of Selection will, of course, select the Members to serve, and we must not try in the House to take away the job of the Committee of Selection because this is a matter for its discretion. Among the additional Members—that is, the 20—it may, if it thinks fit, include Members for non-Scottish seats, although it is one of the advantages of this reform that it will far less often be necessary for non-Scottish Members to serve unless they wish to do so. The rather disagreeable prize to be awarded on the arrival of a new Member that he has to do conscription for the Scottish Committee will not be necessary on the other side of the House, and I hope that henceforward it will be discontinued. The door is left open for Members for non-Scottish seats who may have some special knowledge or some special qualification which they can bring to the Committee. In particular, Scotsmen sitting for non-Scottish seats will be able on occasions to join this Committee for the common advantage. The object of that is to carry out, if not the letter, at any rate the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendation.

The remaining Amendments are all consequential on these changes. I believe that the alterations to be put into effect by these Amendments and additions to Standing Orders will improve the efficiency and smooth running of the Standing Committee system. I am quite certain that they will be for the convenience of hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, and I believe that they are in the spirit of the recommendations of the Select Committee. I followed the debate of a fortnight ago, and I think these changes are generally acceptable to most hon. Members, and in this spirit I commend them to the House.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The changes proposed for the membership of a Committee and for the Quorum follow the lines of the Select Committee's recommendations, and we welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to them, We also welcome the Amendment to Standing Order No. 59, relating to matters at present referred to the Scottish Committee. It does not


go as far as was suggested by the evidence that was given us, but I think it follows the decision of the Select Committee, which considered this matter very carefully and made the recommendations that came before us al, a previous sitting.
As to the composition of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills, a good many of my hon. Friends have a sense of disappointment that the Government have not carried out fully the recommendation of the Select Committee. The Select Committee heard no evidence which was contrary to its recommendation, and it is rather puzzling to know whence the Government drew their inspiration to depart from the Select Committee's recommendation. The Select Committee recommended approximately what the Government have now suggested, but the Committee also recommended that the Committee of Selection should be left a considerable amount of discretion in order that Bills which seemed to be of great importance might be considered by a larger Committee than the normal one which deals with the Committee stage of Bills.
There were two reasons for this. The first was that very important Bills relating to south of the Border are taken on the Floor of the House, and the second was that the more discussion there is during Committee stage and the greater the number of Members who may take part in Committee on a Bill, the less work will remain to be done on Report. The Select Committee took the view that it was more and more necessary to devolve work from the Floor of the House to Committees, and it was thought that the Scottish Committee was providing a good example in relieving the House of the debates which must take place in the House when all the Members interested are not members of the Committee on the Bill. If the Government's proposals are accepted, there may still be some Bills to be taken on the Floor of the Chamber and there may be on Report of Bills more Amendments coming from those Members who were not able to attend the Scottish Committee on questions of great public importance.
Therefore, for the sake of the efficient running of the House, I think it would be the Select Committee's view that perhaps it would be a disadvantage to restrict the number of Members on every occasion.

I am fully aware of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in the discussion the other day begged the House not to leave the Committee this discretion, as it would be embarrassing. There seemed to be the idea that if this discretion were left, every hon. Member who wanted to be on a Committee would be entitled to go on the Committee, and that suggestion was certainly not made by the Select Committee. The Select Committee meant to leave it to the Committee of Selection, and thought that that Committee would have sufficient sense to judge whether a Bill would require more or fewer Members.
On the other hand, the full Scottish Committee as at present constituted does involve penalising Members from south of the Border, and whatever Members may think about the question of numbers, I think I can say that it is the almost unanimous view of Scottish Members that it is very unfair that these Members should have to attend the Scottish Committee. While they appreciate their service to the House, Scottish hon. Members will welcome their absence with just as much enthusiasm for what are, for them, these penalising sittings which take place upstairs. Even Members who disagree with the reduction of the numbers on the Committee agree that it is desirable not to have English Members sitting on that Committee. That is a dilemma which I am afraid can be solved only by having some such change as the Select Committee recommended.
I agree that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Committee normally will not require to commandeer the services of Members from outside Scotland. The Select Committee certainly thought that it was right to make allowances for times when it is desirable that what we may call United Kingdom Members should have the opportunity of serving. There have been occasions on which Members with very special qualifications and interests have performed good service on our Committee, and then they have been welcome there, wherever they may have come from.
We also welcome the distinctive change in the names of the two Committees, and in this case the Government carried out the recommendation of the Select Committee. The Grand Committee, as it has been colloquially called, is now to be


given that name by right. Since 1948 there has been a great deal of devolution of certain activities, which normally would be taken in the House, to the Scottish Grand Committee, and that has been accepted in Scotland, and was commented upon by the Royal Commission as being a stage towards devolution without disturbing the Union, the relationships of the two countries, or the normal rights of Scottish Members in the House.
We therefore welcome this step of consolidation by making a distinction between the Committees which deal with Bills at Committee stage and the Grand Committee which deals, as it were, with other matters as a deputy for the House. As I said in a previous debate, the Select Committee was also impressed from time to time by the problems which came before it, which seemed to indicate that sooner or later the House would have to have a complete investigation into its own timetable, to see whether the experiment which has been carried out in the Scottish Grand Committee can be applied to matters relating to other parts of the United Kingdom. We see no reason at all why, when this House is becoming more and more involved in such matters as N.A.T.O., indeed, in world affairs, and when it is spending more and more time on matters of great Imperial interest, there should not be some devolution of domestic affairs to English and Welsh Members, as well as to Scottish Members.
Therefore, it is not in any selfish way only that we welcome these changes. We welcome them as perhaps providing a beacon light for future Select Committees of the House of Commons which our Select Committee felt was bound to come, if this House is to utilise its time to the best advantage, and so leave more time for dealing on the Floor of the House with these great and important matters of world importance, and certainly matters affecting the peace and future of the country.
As will be seen from the Amendments, the welcome to the Government's proposals has not been unanimous. Indeed, it was impossible to obtain agreement amongst the Scottish Members to this change being made. That was the reason for the appointment of the Select Committee. It has proved impossible to obtain complete agreement even now, but the majority—

Mr. William Ross: My right hon. Friend said that it was impossible to get agreement among Scottish Members, and that that was why the Select Committee was set up. I do not think that he is right about that. I do not remember Scottish Members ever being consulted before the Committee was set up.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes. The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) asked me whether we might have consultations through the unusual channels—as they were at that time. These conversations took place, the matter was discussed, and I had to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I had sufficient evidence to show that it was not going to be possible to obtain unanimity—as I think will be proved when I sit down. The fact is that unanimity does not exist.
Nevertheless, the majority of my colleagues feel that an alteration should be accepted. We should have liked to have seen the Select Committee's recommendations adopted, because they provided flexibility. It is with regret that I have to say that we cannot carry forward into tonight's discussion the unanimity which existed in the Select Committee. What has been proposed is a step forward, however, and we know that proceedings in this House never give Members all that they want. For that reason we certainly shall not refuse what has been granted.
In recent years Scotland has been gaining increasing control over its own affairs. The Royal Commission did not think that that process could go very much further without disturbing the relationship between the two countries, but the evidence obtained by the Select Committee has resulted in further progress being made, and to that extent we welcome the proposals and will certainly support them. Nevertheless, we think that it would be an advantage to reconsider the matter and extend the flexibility of the Committee on occasion, so as to include more Members, if it is at all possible.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The Home Secretary has been disarmingly flattering to the Scots this evening. He has told us that we can call ourselves "grand" and has even set a seal upon us.

Mr. Ross: He has even enshrined it.

Mr. Grimond: In those circumstances it may seem ungracious to look his little gift horse too firmly in the mouth, but I am rather disappointed at not being able to carry a little further our consideration of the Committee system. I agree that the time has come to consider a much greater degree of devolution for Scotland and for England and Wales. It is also becoming apparent that the House must find some method of re-establishing control over expenditure.
There may he growing up a need for some continuous supervision by Members who are either technically qualified or who are interested in the technical subjects which are now continually coming before the House. I regret that at this moment we cannot develop the Scottish Grand Committee idea, because that Committee has proved a useful one, of a nature slightly outside the ordinary run of Committees.
The present Motion does not touch any of these matters, however. It is really one for the relief of Members and, even more, of Ministers. I do not think that anyone can say that there is no justification for relieving them from having continuously to attend on various Committees. The real way of relieving Members, however, is for the Government to look more carefully at the Bills they introduce, but that is another question which is not touched upon by the Motion.
The only substantial matter concerned in the Motion—it has already been raised but it should be pressed a little further—is the question of Bills which are of general interest to more Scottish Members than can be included in the Scottish Standing Committee, as it will be. At first sight it might seem that there must be many Scottish Bills in which at least a large minority of Scottish Members do not have much interest, but on looking back over the Bills which have been considered by the Scottish Standing Committee it is astonishing to find what ramifications most of them have had, even when they have been small Bills, or Bills which appeared at first sight to be entirely Highland Bills. The late Member for Motherwell, Mr. Alexander Anderson, who was a great expert on Highland affairs, would certainly have been a very useful addition to any Standing Committee on any Bill even though it concerned the Highlands only slightly.
I appreciate the difficulty of asking the Committee of Selection to go through the list of candidates for admission to these Committees on every occasion, and of asking it to extend the numbers. We should at least see how this procedure works. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to keep the matter under review and to see if there is any widespread objection to it.
We have also been fortunate in securing two extra days. The real function of the Scottish Grand Committee is to consider the wider aspects of Scottish affairs, and the proposal gives us an extra opportunity to do that.
One method of dealing with major Bills is to discuss them on the Floor of the House. I do not suppose that a firm answer can be given as to the Government's intentions in that respect.

Mr. Ross: We got that last night.

Mr. Grimond: In future, if a Bill of major importance reaches the Committee stage, is it the intention at any rate to consider, upon a suitable Motion, using the House as a whole where it seems desirable that the Bill should receive more examination than can be given by the projected Scottish Standing Committee?
I think that we should give this procedure a trial. The arguments for it were very carefully reviewed by the Select Committee, and on the whole, with reservations, the proposals bear out the recommendations made by the Committee. As certain difficulties are involved in connection with the attendance of Ministers and Members on Scottish Committees it is surely right to see how the proposal works, providing that it is always subject to review at some future date.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. There are several Amendments on the Order Paper. Is it your intention to call them, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): Yes, I propose to call them now. I was about to call Members to take part in a general debate, but no hon. Member rose, so I shall call the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to move his first Amendment.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in line 18, at the end to insert
and
(d) bills, certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and as being of major importance, committed to a Standing committee".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be convenient if we discussed together this and the following Amendment, in line 21, after "bills", insert:
not being bills of major importance".

Mr. Ross: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The two go together.
These Amendments do exactly what the Leader of the Liberal Party wants. I am very glad that he, not being so very much concerned with the controversy relating to this question, has taken up the point of view that he has, because it gives us an objective standard of the way in which these proposals appeal to someone who is really interested in Scottish matters.
I am sorry that the Lord Privy Seal has left the Chamber. I feel that it is a little discourteous to move a Motion, as the right hon. Gentleman did, and then to depart before any critical speech can be made. It is not the kind of conduct that we would accept from the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Standing Committee, or Grand Committee, or whatever name we are to give it. It was very unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to leave, because I have something to say to him.
He was rather flattering to the Scots—but we are not as simple as all that. As a matter of fact, his flattery will certainly not blind us to his distortion of Parliamentary history. He told us that in this proposed new Standing Order the fact that we are to have a Committee to be known by the old name of the Scottish Grand Committee showed that we were getting nearer to what was originally intended to be the function of the Scottish Grand Committee. That just is not true. The Leader of the House is a man of such Parliamentary experience that he ought not to say things like that. He has either distorted things or he has been misled. I am afraid that he is taking us as pretty easy meat if he thinks that he can come along here and say almost anything at all and, having said it, go out without listening to criticism.
The Scottish Grand Committee was established as a Grand Committee to consider the Committee stages of Bills, and for that purpose only. Now we are seeking to amend the first part of the Standing Order by providing, as a fourth duty of the Scottish Grand Committee, that it should deal with Bills of major importance relating exclusively to Scotland. Only if that provision is inserted in the Standing Order will there be any connection at all between the proposed Scottish Grand Committee and what it was originally set up to do.
We are told by the Leader of the House that the Government's proposals bring us nearer to the original intention. The first of those proposals is that Bills will be considered in relation to the principle before they have a formal Second Reading in the House. When was that introduced? The House should remember that the Scottish Grand Committee is over 50 years old.

Mr. John Mackie: It is 63 years old.

Mr. Ross: I am obliged to the hon. Member for being more accurate.
The House should realise that this principle was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) in 1948. This indeed is modern history. One would have thought that the Leader of the House would have known that.
The next provision in the Amendments to Standing Orders relates to Scottish Estimates being referred to the Committee, but this again is modern history and was introduced by my right hon. Friend in 1948. The third provision, unless our Amendment is accepted, is that two additional days are to be provided to discuss Scottish matters. We are very grateful for that. We suggested additional days ourselves, though we did not suggest a specific number. It is wrong to provide for a specific number because that number of days will be used whether or not there is need for them. I would have been quite content if the machinery had been made available, so that we could have used it on two, three or four occasions if necessary but not on certain specific, formal occasions simply because the Standing Order happens to specify two days. This provision is not in force yet, anyhow.
There are, therefore, three functions of the Grand Committee which the Leader of the House tells us bring us nearer to the original intention of the Committee, but two of these were started in 1948 and a third is not in operation at all. Except when we are dealing with Committee matters we have, therefore, departed entirely from the original conception and purpose of the Scottish Grand Committee; and that is one of the reasons why my hon. Friends and I suggest the addition of a new subsection (d) to the first part of the amended Standing Orders.
We cannot be put aside by the rather strange flattery and rather peculiar sense of history which have been trotted out by the Leader of the House. We can, however, thank the right hon. Gentleman that we are to have the name of the Scottish Grand Committee restored. At present there is no such thing. It is the Scottish Standing Committee, and it is only custom and usage that has preserved the name. The old Grand Committee system is finished for all practical purposes if the Lord Privy Seal's Motion is passed unamended.
I am very glad to see the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition present. He will be glad to know that the only Grand Committee left with a Committee function will be the Welsh Grand Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is that?"] There is such a thing, to deal with Bills specifically concerned with Wales and Monmouthshire.

Mr. Mackie: It has not been set up.

Mr. Ross: According to my researches, the provision is there and it can be set up under Standing Orders.
We seem to have salvaged from the wreck of the Scottish Grand Committee its name and something of its former power, if not its glory. With the new powers which the Committee has acquired since 1948, with the provision of the additional two days, and if we ensure that it retains the ability to consider Bills of major importance, we shall have built up a Scottish Grand Committee which might well be a model for other developments in the House.
Hitherto, when we have debated the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on these matters we have done so

more or less in theory, but it will be recollected that yesterday we gave a Second Reading in the House to an important Bill, the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill. That Measure relates to Scottish local government reform, something which will touch every part of Scotland, every local authority, large and small, whether small burgh, large burgh or county council, right from the north to the south and from the east to the west. If anyone asked me what is a Bill of major importance, I should say that we had one before us yesterday. If anyone wants to know how these proposals will function in practice let him think of that first Bill that will be dealt with under the new procedure.
If the Opposition Amendment is accepted, that Bill will be dealt with by a Committee at which every Scottish Member will have the right to be present. It is up to him and his conscience and the relations between him and his constituency as to whether he will exercise that right, but it is a right that has existed for over 60 years and which I am not willing to have lightly taken away from us.
If our Amendment is accepted, every Scottish Member will be able to speak for his local authority and his constituents as they will be affected by that Bill, but if the Amendment is not accepted and the Bill goes to the Scottish Standing Committee as it will be constituted in future, it means that the Committee of Selection will select 30 Scottish Members effectively out of 70 and that there will be 40 Scottish Members who will be cut off from their present rights. At its very best, if the Committee is made up of a full 50, and those 50 are all Scots, then there will be 20 Members cut off.

Sir Ian Fraser: They can pair.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has not been present or has not understood. If those 20 are not selected—and I have always understood that if one is not a member of the Committee one cannot pair to go and sit in it—the fact is that, whether they like it or not, they will be denied the right they have at present.
We have no guarantee, however, that the Committee will consist of 50 Members. Further, we have no guarantee that if it does so the 20 added Members will all be Members representing Scottish constituencies. In fact, the Leader of the House last week talked about 70 Members from constituencies outwith Scotland, so we come to the position that between 27 and 40 Scottish Members may be denied rights they presently have.
When we reduce it still further I will guarantee that on this Committee we shall have the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who is in charge of local government, and one Law Officer, if not two. So there for a start we shall have four Front Bench Members on the Government side. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested in this question will appreciate this fact. The same thing applies to the Front Bench on the other side.

Mr. Mackie: Whoever is in power, the Law Officers must be there.

Mr. Ross: Exactly, but the fact that they are there means that those places are filled and therefore, the exclusion of interested people becomes more certain. As I have said, the same thing applies to the Opposition Front Bench, no matter who is in opposition. The person who was formerly Secretary of State for Scotland will obviously take an interest in this Committee. So also will the Joint Under-Secretaries and the Law Officers, so we reach the point where fewer and fewer back-bench Members will be able to exercise rights they presently have.
This is a serious matter for anyone who takes seriously the rights of back-bench Members. Why is it being done? We shall not get a more manageable Committee, as has been suggested. A small Committee is not necessarily manageable. Indeed, the only ideal Committee is a Committee of one. I can remember meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee where considerably fewer than 30 Members were present, which had run on for a long time and been very unmanageable from a Government point of view.
So the Committee will not be any more efficient. In fact, one of the outstanding facts about the Scottish Grand Committee in its consideration of Bills is that we get better Bills as a result of that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member

for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) will remember the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was then Secretary of State, and he listened to debate, to argument and discussion, with the result that he got a different Bill from the English and Welsh one and it was a better Bill. The first people to admit that will be the English and Welsh. It was simply because we had that general type of Committee, composed not only of experts, with that fund of common sense which Members of Parliament bring to bear on such matters.
I am at a loss to find the real reason for this change. I do not want to impute motives to anyone, but the suggestion that this will give hon. Members a better chance of serving on other Committees is ridiculous, when one considers those Members who have not come to the Scottish Grand Committee at all, or who have come very seldom—

Mr. Mackie: On both sides.

Mr. Ross: In this case I would say on three sides, with all due respect to the Leader of the Liberal Party. I have here a report of attendances at the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committee. The people who come most seldom to the Scottish Grand Committee do not serve on other Committees. Indeed if we consider the Members on both sides of the House who served faithfully on the Scottish Grand Committee and also represented their respective parties on the Rent Bill Committee, we find that they achieved the best attendance figures of all in both the Scottish Grand Committee and the Rent Bill Committee, so they found no difficulty, or if there was difficulty they were able to surmount it.
The same is true throughout the whole history of the Scottish Grand Committee. There were 20 sittings on the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill and the average attendance was between 50 and 60, nearer 50. The point is that it was not always the same 50 or 60 members. People exercised their right to be present, and they were able to make arrangements to be away when they really wanted to be, and those who did not want to attend the Scottish Grand Committee did not want to attend any other Committee.
All we are really doing is giving a right to be absent from Parliamentary duties. We are giving a licence to be absent, a cover-up to be absent, to people who have not been doing their Parliamentary duty properly in respect of the Scottish Grand Committee.
What we are suggesting in the Amendment is that in dealing with major Bills, Bills which are of importance to every part of Scotland and should be of importance to every Member representing a Scottish constituency, those Members who take their responsibilities and rights seriously would prefer, if they cannot get their rights preserved in respect of all Bills, at least to have the right, in respect of major Bills by which their constituents are vitally affected, to be on the Committee and to make their contributions to the discussions, debates and Amendments in order to further the interests of the people of Scotland.
If it is the sincere intention of the Leader of the House, who is still absent, to try to preserve or to get nearer the original intention of the Scottish Grand Committee, he must accept the Amendment. If the Amendment is accepted to enable Bills of major importance to be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee, thus preserving the rights of Scottish Members in respect of them, then, with the added two days suggested by the Committee on Procedure and the changes which were made in 1948, we shall certainly have a Scottish Grand Committee that is not only nearer the original intention but which has adapted itself to the circumstances of today.

8.36 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the Secretary of State has listened very intently to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and is willing to answer the arguments which he advanced, particularly the one which concerns the replacement of the right to be present with the right to be absent. I think that is very important. I have a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members who may have other commitments, legitimate commitments, which oblige them to absent themselves on certain occasions from the Scottish Grand Committee. But that is easily overcome, and, in fact, the

attendance record shows that it is easily overcome. I have never heard complaints from either side of the House that it is not overcome by the present system of pairing. I have not heard an argument which suggests that that system is unworkable, unreasonable and does not meet the claims of hon. Members on either side who want to get away from the Scottish Grand Committee.
If it is perfectly true that there is no difficulty there, then what can the House be thinking about in changing a Standing Order to make the position more difficult for those of us who want to be present at the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss Bills of major importance? I have never heard an understandable and reasonable argument made on that point.
When one looks at the evolution of Parliamentary procedure, one sees a definite direction, a stream of thought, leading towards better Government, better administration within the House itself, better dealing with public business and so on. When one considers the evolution of the Scottish Committee and sees the changes in its procedure, particularly the changes in 1948, one wonders how this suggestion could possibly fit into the pattern. It seems to be a complete divergence. The Conservative Party in Scotland can point to the change in the number of Under-Secretaries, to the appointment of the Minister of State, and, no doubt, at the next election will advance arguments to show the tendency towards devolution in many ways, but not in this way if this Standing Order goes through unamended.
This is clearly a jarring note coming into the harmony that has gone on for some time in the emergence of the Committee in its present form. A cogent point is that Scottish Members of Parliament who have the right to attend the Committee to discuss major Bills are now being denied that right; not absolutely, of course; not in every case—we have not reached that stage yet. But the majority of us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has argued, are being denied this right by this new Standing Order.
The Secretary of State for Scotland must answer this without recourse to the dodges that we have had in the debate. I have reread the debate which the Select Committee had, and I still cannot find an


argument which is supposed to meet the very legitimate objection raised by a number of Members, by not enough hon. Members, particularly Conservative hon. Members. If hon. Members opposite were not in Government, I doubt whether they would remain silent. I hope that if the Labour Party formed the Government and this sort of thing was being perpetrated, one or two of my hon. Friends would be willing to speak against it.
The only chance we have of accepting in part the proposals of the Government in this respect while still meeting the fundamental objection in respect of the rights and liberties of Scottish Members is to accept the Amendment which has been so well moved by my hon. Friend.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has made a powerful case. He was not as blunt as he might have been. I join him in protesting at the action of the Home Secretary in moving the Motion and then disappearing, especially as he obviously needs some instruction about the historical development of the Scottish Committee. I am always deeply suspicious of the Home Secretary, more particularly when he acts as fairy godmother to the Opposition.
We have put forward our Amendment having in mind the Bill that we were discussing yesterday, for it is in respect of that Bill that we shall find the first effects of the Government's proposals. I welcome the two extra sittings, but I regard them as a sop to us to pass this Motion without undue opposition. The two sittings do not represent two days; they represent merely five hours in a year.
Being an Englishman representing a Scottish constituency, I am not in any way pandering to any kind of Scottish nationalism, but I demand the right—this is our fundamental argument—to go into the Scottish Standing Committee whenever it is sitting although I may not be particularly interested in the Bill being debated. I have that right at the moment. I profoundly object to being denied that right merely because certain hon. Members opposite insist on the right to be absent, which is the essential purpose of the Motion.

Mr. James Stuart: Would the hon. Gentleman give a similar

right to every English Member to attend every Standing Committee?

Mr. Hamilton: From the numerical point of view, it is a practical proposition that the seventy Scottish Members should attend the Scottish Standing Committee, but, purely from the numerical aspect, there is no such practical proposition in respect of English Members attending ordinary Standing Committees. Therefore, the question does not arise.
It has been argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) and others that we need this extra time away from the Scottish Grand Committee to make the Scottish Grand Committee more efficient and expeditious and to give us time for thought and meditation and an opportunity to serve on other Committees. I agree that there is something in each of those arguments, but not as much as the right hon. Gentleman pretends.
After all, every Member has some obligation to serve on some Standing Committee, and quite frequently we are under great pressure whether serving on the Scottish Grand Committee or on another Committee. One does get opportunities—some may say that they are too great while others may say that they are too small—for thought, reading and meditation.
However, I do not believe that that is the primary purpose of this proposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock hesitated to say it in blunt terms, but I say quite bluntly, because it has been said by hon. Members opposite, that the primary purpose of this proposition is to get hon. Member opposite out of the Scottish Grand Committee, although they were elected to look after Scottish interests, so that they can attend to business interests outside the House. I shall resist being denied the right to be a Member of a Scottish Grand Committee for the purpose of betraying those people who sent hon. Members opposite here.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I, too, resent the cutting down of the Scottish Grand Committee, because the Scottish Grand Committee has to be balanced in proportion to the state of the parties in the House. If some hon.


Members opposite want to absent themselves from the Scottish Grand Committee, it may be that to maintain a balance some Scottish Labour Members will have to be sacrificed.

Mr. Mackie: We could not man the Committee entirely by Socialists to excuse all Conservatives. That would be ridiculous, and the hon. Member knows it.

Mr. Bence: The Scottish Grand Committee is to be reduced from 71 to 30 Members. We know that some Conservative Members, say 10, do not want to attend the Scottish Grand Committee. In order to maintain the balance of parties in that Committee, the Committee of Selection is bound to say that if there are 10 Conservative Members who do not want to attend there must be 10 Labour Members who cannot attend. If the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) is prepared to support the proposition that the 30 Members of the Scottish Grand Committee shall be the 30 Members who want to serve, irrespective of party, then that is perhaps worthy of consideration.
However, I should resent it if, merely because our opposite numbers do not want to attend, some of my hon. Friends were debarred from attending. That is very bad practice and the more I have considered the matter and the way representation in Scotland is distributed, the more I believe that to be a serious infringement of the rights of Scottish Members. I know that some Conservative Members have intensive business interests. I do not question the morality of that. Members are entitled to have interests outside the House. I am not criticising that, but merely making the point that if there are 10 or 20 Members who do not wish to attend the House and who wish to be absent, the Committee of Selection is bound to eliminate from the Scottish Grand Committee that exact number of Labour Members.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider this issue. In a later Amendment we have suggested that the numbers should be increased to avoid a large number of Labour Members having to be eliminated from the Scottish Grand Committee in order to maintain a

balance merely because a number of Conservative Members want to absent themselves.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It seems to me that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is one which should be considered at some time by the Government, because as the proposed new Standing Orders are worded there is no doubt that we have denied the Scottish Committee the right to consider a Bill in Committee. I do not think that that is entirely a good thing. By and large, I think that it is an advantage to be able to put certain business before a Scottish Standing Committee. At the same time, I should have thought that it would not be impossible to leave Bills, if they were considered to be of sufficient importance, to be considered by the Scottish Committee.
I do not agree altogether with some of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. I think that some of them were rather tenuous.

Mr. Ross: Which ones?

Mr. Willis: The argument that to have the whole of the Scottish Grand Committee to consider a Bill makes it a better Bill.

Mr. Ross: No. I pointed out that with the Scottish Grand Committee as at present constituted we do have better Bills—this is an historical fact. It is not an argument to say that if we cut down the Scottish Grand Committee we are doing it for the purposes of efficiency.

Mr. Willis: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I mistook the reason why he made this particular reference. However, he was at the time adducing a number of arguments. He made this point, which I thought was rather tenuous. He said that we might have the same result with a Committee of 40 or 50 as with a Committee of 70 or 71. I should have thought that any Bill at the end of the Committee stage ought to be better, and in nearly every case is better than when it enters the Committee stage.

Mr. Ross: That is, if they accept our Amendments.

Mr. Willis: Yes. I do not think that my hon. Friend's argument about being able to attend the Committees is a good or strong argument. My hon. Friend referred to the Rent Bill. The position about the Rent Bill was that there was not a sitting of the Scottish Committee whilst the Rent Bill was on. We had to postpone the sittings of the Scottish Committee whilst that Bill was being considered.

Mr. Lawson: I think my hon. Friend will agree that there was sustained argument that it was quite unnecessary to suspend the sittings of the Scottish Committee while the Bill was being considered. I think my hon. Friend took part in the argument on the Rent Bill.

Mr. Willis: I am dealing with the historical aspect. The historical fact is that there was not a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee whilst the Rent Bill was being considered, which made it possible for my hon. Friends, as well as myself, to give good attendance to that Bill and also to give good attendance to the Scottish Grand Committee. It might not have been so easy if both Committees had been sitting at the same time.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will recollect that Scotland was not concerned with the Rent Bill until we reached Clause 8.

Mr. Willis: I agree, but after that Scotland was considerably concerned right through the Bill. It is true that one of the reasons why the Scottish Grand Committee did not meet during those weeks was because the Rent Bill was under consideration. I am not arguing whether that was right or wrong. I am simply stating it as a fact. All I am suggesting is that that made it possible to attend and not only to have a good record of attendance, but also to take an active part in the debate in the Committee at the time; but it is not easy when two Bills are being considered.
The arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) were, I thought, much more to the point: namely, that we ought to have given a certain amount of freedom to the Committee of Selection so that in case of necessity we could have had the Grand Committee and not cut ourselves off. My own feeling about the procedure

and the changes we are making is that I want to see the status of the Scottish Grand Committee increased. I want to see the work that it does increased. I, too, think that the whole way in which we deal with our work in the House of Commons must at some time be considered and that this procedure undoubtedly offers an example of how it can be done.
I therefore wish to see as much as possible devolved upon the Scottish Grand Committee, but I believe that it would add to the prestige and dignity of the Scottish Committee if, as well as having a Committee of all the Members, we had at the same time the right to have a sub-Committee of fewer members to consider small Bills of a lesser degree of importance. Therefore, from that point of view, it seems to me that we are going along the right road.

Mr. Ross: With the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: No. I think that in these proposals we are going along the right road. It would have been better had we retained the right, if the need arose or if it was felt sufficiently important, to have a Bill considered in Committee by the whole of the Grand Committee. I agreed with that right at the beginning, but even though that is not included I still think that we are going along the right road. I do not see that it will be impossible to remedy this at any time in the future.

Mr. Ross: That depends upon the Government introducing revisions of the Standing Order. We do not have the opportunity otherwise. Without the Amendment, the powers of the Scottish Grand Committee will be completely taken away. We have no power of decision at all. Bills are only sent to the Committee for consideration of principle if they are innocuous. In relation to the Estimates, we cannot vote. In relation to the two days, we again cannot vote. We have no power of decision. We can only talk, and very often about unimportant things.

Mr. Willis: As my hon. Friend knows, I am fully aware of all the limitations of the Scottish Grand Committee, and I have said so. I want it to be given more power. I have never departed from that view since I came into the House of Commons. I want to see increasing


power devolved upon the Scottish Grand Committee—but we are not discussing that now.

Mr. Ross: We are.

Mr. Willis: That is a question of debate. It might have been better had we retained the power to have the whole Committee considering a Bill in Committee in the same way.

Mr. Ross: That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: It might have been better had we done that. My argument is that the proposals as a whole go a step in advance of what we have at present. I do not see that there is any contradiction in that. The proposals give us something that we have not had before. They give us the opportunity for debating Scottish matters for two days. Motions can be tabled by the Secretary of State. Previously, we have never had an opportunity of debating motions that we have put on the Order Paper of the House. Now, we shall probably have the opportunity to do so. That is an important advance. Possibly it is a more important achievement to have secured that than for us to have the right to record our attendances. Let us be frank, that is what this right means in many cases—the right to go into the Committee Room and have an attendance recorded, and then to walk out again.

Mr. Ross: That is the practice, not a right.

Mr. Willis: It may be the practice, but it is a right which we have at present. Do not let us deceive ourselves into thinking that anything else happens.
I should be far more deeply moved by the arguments of my hon. Friend were the attendances at the Scottish Grand Committee something like 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. But rarely can we get a vote of more than 50 out of an expanded Committee numbering about 80, and so we must think seriously about this matter. I agree that it is useful for hon. Members representing English constituencies to have the right to discuss a Bill on the Floor of the House in Committee. As an analogy, we might have the right to do the same thing in the Scottish Grand Committee. What we have represents a

decided advance on the powers we formerly possessed, and so I support the suggested change.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) says that we have rights which we should cherish regarding the Scottish Grand Committee. I cannot see what particular rights the Scottish Grand Committee, as it is to be constituted, gives to us. The principle of a Bill may be debated in the Committee, but we all have the right, as representatives of Scottish constituencies, to debate the principle of a Bill or its Second Reading on the Floor of the House. In fact, the advantage lies with the House when a Bill is referred to the Committee sitting upstairs. The legislation is taken from the Floor of the House, but we still have the right to debate it in this Chamber, and I maintain that it is better to debate legislation in this Chamber than in a Committee which sits upstairs for 2½ hours.

Mr. Woodburn: That was not the reason why legislation was transferred to the Committee. It was because Government business would have prevented Scottish Bills from ever being discussed in the House. Therefore, this additional facility was given in respect of non-controversial Scottish business.

Mr. Lawson: But that is an advantage to the House and does not represent a special right of Members representing Scottish constituencies. We have the right to debate a Bill in the House. All that has happened in this case is that the legislation has been transferred to the Committee which sits upstairs.
The same thing applies to the Estimates. Facilities would have to be provided to enable us to discuss Scottish Estimates. I exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East—though he goes most of the way with us—when I say that we are asking for what we have called the Scottish Grand Committee—and what was in fact a Grand Committee in the earlier years—be allowed to continue.
It would be an advantage to go back and examine the genesis of the proposal to make the alteration. In the first place we had behind-the-scenes approaches to reduce the size of this Committee, and they were spurned.
Many of us on this side of the House did not want to reduce the size of the Committee. Therefore, a Select Committee was set up to examine the question. The Government made their proposals to the Select Committee, and they are precisely the proposals which we are discussing now, an increase of from 30 to 50 for the so-called "Standing" Committee. The Lord Privy Seal in his statement said that.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): He said from 20 to 50.

Mr. Lawson: All right, we have made the improvement. It is now from 30 to 50. That is one change that has been made. The recommendations of the Select Committee were turned down and the Government went back to where they began. What they wanted they are getting, and it is a pretence to dress it up in some other way.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is forgetting the two days.

Mr. Lawson: The two days were accepted, namely five hours' discussion. I agree that it is important, but that was given reluctantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has pointed out that this dressing up makes the matter seem much more important and, therefore, more easily accepted. There was a doubt whether we would get it. In fact, the Government are getting their way. The Government wanted to wipe out the Scottish Standing Committee, and it is, in fact, being wiped out. We are being given something else. The rights of all Members to debate these matters on the Floor of the House might be much more advantageous than debating these matters in Committee.
We have examined the reasons which are given. The first was the more efficient working of a smaller Committee. This point has been dealt with at great length, and I do not propose to repeat the arguments, except to ask whether the Scottish Standing Committee has been shown to be less efficient than the smaller Standing Committees? I do not think anyone will maintain that a smaller Committee is necessarily more efficient. Consider the attendances in the Scottish Standing Committee. In the last Session,

the highest was 63 and the lowest 44. The attendance is not so different from the ordinary smaller Standing Committees dealing with major Bills. The important point which has been mentioned time after time is that those who wish to attend can do so as a right, but we are being penalised because some hon. Members do not wish to attend. It is for that reason that the changes are being made.
In looking over the evidence submitted by the Secretary of State in this House and to the Select Committee, I think he was searching for arguments. He was seeking to illustrate how much more hardly done by were the Scottish than were the English, Welsh and Irish Members. He afterwards said that one could do very queer things with figures. On 4th December, he reached the conclusion
…that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are called, on the average, about four times as often as are Members representing non-Scottish constituencies for Committee work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 570.]
He reached this conclusion in what to me was a very strange way. He told us:
According to the return for the Sessions 1956–57, the total summonses for Standing Committees A, B, C and D was 4.570. Dividing this by the number of English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members, it appears that these Members were each summoned on aver- age eight times. On the other hand, last Session the total summonses to attend the Scottish Standing Committee were 2,106. Dividing this by the number of Scottish Members, the average number of summonses per Member was 30.
It was pointed out that there had been only 26 meetings of the Scottish Standing Committee. The mystery of how he arrived at his figures still remains.
It seems to me that here we had an example of desperate searching to find arguments showing that the Scottish Members were overworked. What were the meetings of the various Committees in the Sessions mentioned? Standing Committee A dealt with six Bills and met 42 times. Standing Committee B dealt with six Bills and met 21 times. Standing Committee C dealt with nine Bills and met 21 times. Standing Committee D dealt with five Bills and met 30 times. The Scottish Standing Committee dealt with one Bill and met 20 times, plus the six meetings on the Estimates. In all we had 26 meetings, but in his effort to show how much more hardly done by we an and how much greater is the burden


we carry the Secretary of State produced 30 summonses out of 26 meetings. He said that on average we are doing four times as much Committee work as the average English, Welsh and Northern Ireland Member. For my part, I cannot accept the argument.
His second argument is contained in column 571, from which I quote:
The whole case revolves around whether or not Scottish Members, tied so tightly as they are today to this Scottish Committee, can do their duties as United Kingdom as well as Scottish Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 570–1.]
This is the kernel of the argument. Time after time we were told that we cannot do our duty as United Kingdom Members and at the same time do our duty as Scottish Members. It has been pointed out, however, that a number of Scottish Members apparently find no difficulty in doing their duty both as Scottish Members and as United Kingdom Members.
The Rent Act has been mentioned. I can very well recall the rivalry to be on the Committee dealing with the Rent Bill. It was very keen rivalry. I can recall the heartburning and the disappointment of many of my hon. Friends who were not chosen to be on the Rent Bill Committee. This was a major Bill; there is no question about it being a major Bill. But only four Scottish Members on this side of the House and five Scottish Members on the other side of the House were on the Committee. It was not a serious burden. It did not mean that the Scottish Grand Committee could not function without those four Labour Members and five from the other side of the House. They would have been almost automatically paired. The evidence is that all were very keen to be on the Rent Bill Committee.
Although much has been made of the duplication of membership on perhaps two Committees, nothing has been said about the positive advantage which Members sometimes gain from being on two Committees at the same time. Perhaps I may mention the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). He is not here tonight, but I understand that at the moment he is a Member of the Committee dealing with the Slaughterhouses Bill and a Member of the Scottish Standing Committee dealing with the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. The hon.

Member certainly utilises his opportunities. He appears on the Scottish Standing Committee, as it is properly called, and he is very interested, no doubt, in farming matters. He appears on the Scottish Standing Committee, argues his case and then disappears to the Committee dealing with the Slaughterhouses Bill where he argues his case there.

Mr. Willis: It is rather unfortunate that, having made his appearance and having argued his case, we do not have the opportunity of replying to him because he is not there.

Mr. Ross: That takes place not only in the Scottish Grand Committee but also in this House. The Leader of the House has no other Committee to go to, but he makes a speech and goes out. First things first.

Mr. Lawson: I accept the various points made. It is also positively advantageous to the hon. Member for South Angus to be on the Slaughterhouses Bill Committee and on the Scottish Committee at this time. He is interested in both. If they were to meet at different times, it would be better for him, but since they are meeting simultaneously and since he is interested in both, he does not have to attend each one, after all. He notes the particular sections of the Bill in which he is interested, attends the Committee at the time these are dealt with, argues his case, and then goes from the one to the other. It is not always a disadvantage; indeed, in many cases, it is a positive advantage, but there are occasions when Members—

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I also happen to be on both Committees, and I find that there is no advantage whatsoever.

Mr. Lawson: No doubt the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South does not find it advantageous. I was making the point, which I think is a perfectly valid one, that it is clear from the behaviour of the hon. Member for South Angus that he finds it advantageous to be on both at the same time. What is true of the hon. Member for South Angus can also be true of others at this stage. Again, much was said about the other duties of—

Mr. Willis: As far as I can see, there is nothing in this proposal to prevent the same position continuing, if the hon. Gentleman were desperately interested.

Mr. Lawson: Not if he is desperately interested, but presumably the Committee of Selection would see that he was on the one and would not put him on the other.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is defeating his own argument.

Mr. Lawson: I think myself that this is what the Committee of Selection did. They put him on one Committee, and saw that there was no duplication. The principal argument is the duplication of Committees; if that is not the case, the argument is much less sound, as has been pointed out.
The Secretary of State made a great deal of play about Members doing duties abroad on behalf of the Government, and pointed out how difficult it was for them if they were regularly summoned to attend the Scottish Grand Committee. Strasbourg was mentioned in particular, and it was said that here there was no question of a waste of time, because they were doing valuable work on behalf of the Government, though the fact that a Member might be a Member of the Scottish Grand Committee might cause very great difficulty.
The hon. Member for Motherwell happens at the present time to be on the Strasbourg delegation, as does the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White), and from my own knowledge I can say there has been no difficulty whatever. The hon. Member for Rutherglen sits on the Government side of the House, and the hon. Member for Motherwell sits on this side, and when they attend Strasbourg they cancel each other out and there is no difficulty at all. The Strasbourg delegation usually carries two Scottish Members, one from each side of the House, so that that particular difficulty hardly ever arises. Similarly, with other delegations that we send abroad, we usually have one from each side and they cancel themselves out.

Mr. Ross: It should be pointed out, in fairness to the hon. Member for Motherwell himself, that he was summoned to 57 Committees and attended 52 out of the 57. Even the occasions when

he was unable to be present were very few.

Mr. Lawson: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The argument surely is that these difficulties are quite easily overcome if we are concerned to overcome them.
Another point was raised about the difficulty of Ministers of a United Kingdom Department in attending the Scottish Grand Committee. I perfectly well recognise that difficulty, but how many Members are in that case? As I understand it, there is only one junior Minister—outside the Scottish Office—who represents a Scottish constituency. He is in the Admiralty. I quite understand that he should not be expected to attend the Scottish Standing Committee, but I do not see why there should be any difficulty in evolving some system, or in making some sensible arrangement, to cancel out the disadvantage of his absence. I notice that it is possible to do something in the case of the Chairmen's Panel. When they attend or take the Chair at some other Committee their absence from the Scottish Standing Committee is cancelled out.
An example is my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). He is a most faithful attender at the meetings of the Scottish Standing Committee. He is recorded as having been summoned to only six meetings, and he has attended six. The reason is that he is a Chairman, and arrangements are made to meet that difficulty. The same situation applies in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). Arrangements are made to meet the difficulties of Members on the Chairmen's Panel, and what can be done for them can be done in other cases.
Summing up my objections to the Government's proposals and my support for the Amendment, I would say, first, that what we call the Scottish Grand Committee has worked well over the years. No serious argument has been put forward that it has not worked as effectively as any other Committee.
Secondly, since the total number of Scottish Members is seventy-one the size of the Committee is quite practicable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) has pointed out. It


is not practicable to put all the English Members on to a Standing Committee, because there are far too many. If we want to take English business off the Floor of the House we must break down the number of Members to consider it, but that consideration does not apply in the case of Scottish Members. Their number—seventy-one, with the additions necessary to make up the Government majority—provides quite a manageable Committee, and there is no reason why, on grounds of practicability, it should be reduced or wiped out.
Thirdly, the Committee as at present constructed gives all Members the right to be present. If they do not want to be present they can absent themselves. The right to be present should not be taken away because certain Members wish to be absent, but that seems to be the reason for the proposal.
Finally, whatever we may think of the Scottish Grand Committee here it is highly regarded in Scotland. It is very often spoken of there. That is one of the arguments we use when demands are made for more devolution, or even for separation. There is no lack of voices in Scotland demanding separation from the rest of the country. There is not a majority movement in that direction, but there is a potential one, and if it were once thought that Scotland was being treated in a slighting fashion that potential could speedily become a movement exceedingly difficult to control.
At present we can always say that we have the Scottish Grand Committee, upon which we all have the right to attend. That is to be taken away from us, and in that sense, instead of being a movement towards devolution, it is a movement away from it. If I were asked to give my reasons for this movement I would say that its real purpose is to make it easier for the Government of the day to control the back benchers on both sides of the House. The acceptance of this change makes it easier for the machine to operate. It makes it easier for the Whips and for the Government, and more difficult for the back benchers. I have the greatest respect for the Scottish Labour Whip, but let the House think of the kind of situation that could easily arise.
I and some of my hon. Friends might not be particularly anxious to attend a

certain Committee, although we want the right to attend if we so wish. We might say that we did not want to attend a Committee when it was dealing with a certain Bill, and then we might very well find that when the same Committee came to deal with another Bill, which we were anxious to discuss, we should not find ourselves members of that Committee. This applies to back benchers on both sides. The machine is given added power and placed in a position in which it can more easily control the back benchers. Back benchers on both sides of the House should think in terms of preserving back bench powers, such as they are. This proposal is something that undermines those powers, and for the reasons that I have enumerated I support the Amendment.

9.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): As hon. Members will probably have noted, I have listened with the closest attention to everything that has been said in the debate. I regret what was said about the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House. I think that all hon. Members know that at times Ministers have duties which take them out of the Chamber, even if they have spoken in debate.

Mr. Ross: The Leader of the House might have mentioned that he was leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Maclay: My right hon. Friend is a man of great courtesy to the House and I am very sorry for what has been said.
After listening to the debate I find that there is really little to say. What there is to be said on each side of the argument has already been said, and I do not want to go over much of the ground again. I will, however, try to pick out the main case that was deployed by hon. Members who have supported the Amendment.
The general gravamen of the first charge against the new proposals was that they are somehow derogatory to the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) implied throughout his speech that we had been developing the Scottish Grand Committee over the years. He agreed that there had been changes of importance in 1948 and certain added rights had come to the


Scottish Grand Committee, and he conceded that the additional two days were a small advance. His whole line was that there had been a steady advance in the utility, dignity and status of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Ross: It is a pity that the Leader of the House is not here, because I was answering his speech. He told us that what was being done was bringing the Scottish Grand Committee nearer to its original intention, and I have pointed out that it was so far away from the original intention that the only powers now left to that Committee were powers given to it in 1948.

Mr. Maclay: If that is a general summary of the argument, I have not been far wrong.
The position is exactly the opposite of what it has been stated to be. The whole history of Parliament has been a history of evolution in the way in which it works. Many of the arguments deployed today about the right of every hon. Member to attend every meeting of a Committee must have been deployed years ago when the Committee system started. If the argument applies to Scottish Members in relation to the Scottish Committee it must have applied with equal intensity in its day to hon. Members from all over the United Kingdom. The attack that has been developed today in relation to the right of every hon. Member to attend every Committee on every occasion is an attack on the whole Committee system.

Mr. Ross: We are debating an Amendment which would retain this power in relation to major Bills only, and I should be very glad to hear the argument against that.

Mr. Maclay: What I have said applies equally strongly to major Bills. I agree that the House takes Money Bills on the Floor, but very few major Bills indeed are taken on the Floor nowadays. The substantial change has come only since 1945. I know that very well. Before the war, and before the highly controversial nationalisation Bills were put forward by the party opposite when it was in power, it would have been very unusual for such Bills not to have been taken on the Floor of the House. They were taken in Committee after 1945, and people had their views on that at the time.
So what we are really discussing is the evolution of Parliamentary institutions. I am astounded to find hon. Gentlemen opposite tending to be extremely conservative in their point of view. They want to hold on to practices of the past, regardless of the natural process of evolution that must go on if Parliamentary institutions are to work properly.

Mr. Ross: A Tory conspiracy.

Mr. Maclay: It is wrong to impute ulterior motives to those of us who support the proposals before the House, unamended. I do not want to go too much into the detail of what has been said. Whether Parliament should be composed of full-time Members or not has nothing to do with this argument. I re-submit that the question is the simple one of how Scottish Members can make the best contribution to the work of Parliament, to Scottish interests and to the interests of their constituencies. I am convinced from my time in this House that excessive time devoted to the Scottish Grand Committee can be, and has been in many cases, an obstacle to the full and proper part that hon. Members would like to take in the general work of the House and in other committee work.
Now I come to the point of delegations going abroad, because these have assumed great importance in the functions of a Member of Parliament. I repeat that I do not consider them to be an escape from Parliamentary duties—far from it. Any of us who have served at Strasbourg or elsewhere know that it is extremely hard work, and that it can be valuable work because of the obvious contacts and discussions.
Then there was the pairing argument. Far be it from me to decry pairing. It is a necessary institution for the work of the House of Commons. Without it we could not function at all but, because that system exists is not a valid reason for holding on to a size for a Committee which nearly everybody who has spoken in this debate has agreed practically never meets with its full number of Members. Attendance figures are one thing; the Members in the Committee at a given moment are another, as has already been pointed out this evening.
Throughout the discussion it has been clear that everybody agrees that if Scottish Members are to do their job properly the


Scottish Committee cannot be filled with 71 people every day it meets. Some have to be out of the Committee, and whether they have signed the attendance register or not is another matter. There is a wide measure of agreement that the Committee functions well with an attendance of between 40 and 50.

Mr. Ross: Then is the Minister now going to reform the House of Commons? As far as I can see, there are not 625 people here; there have not been any day this week and probably not any day this year. How does he propose to remedy that on the analogy that, because all the Members do not attend the Scottish Grand Committee, we should cut down the number on it?

Mr. Maclay: I will not follow that attractive bait. The only remaining argument to deal with is whether it would have been wise to leave the precise numbers to the discretion of the Committee of Selection. That is open to argument. We have considered carefully what was said in the previous debate and we have paid attention to what was said by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made it clear that in the mind of the Select Committee there was never the intention that the Committee of Selection would have to appoint everybody who asked to be put on the Scottish Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: So far as I can remember, the understanding of the Select Committee was that hon. Members should go on the Scottish Committee in the usual way, through the usual channels. The discretion as to who would be selected would rest entirely with the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Maclay: That is right. The decision rests with the Committee of Selection but if there was no limit there would be left to the Committee of Selection the rather difficult job, at times the almost impossible job, of deciding between two Members, both of whom wanted to be put on the Committee. If the Committee felt that the result of the new procedure' was that it should necessarily put everyone on who asked—that was not what, I think, the right hon. Gentleman said—it would he easy for it to decide. But there was no intention that it should

necessarily accept, or should accept, every hon. Member who applied. I think-Oat the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
I think that it puts an almost impossible task on the Committee of Selection, and I suggest that the proposals that the Government have made go a very long way to meeting the broad wishes of every hon. Member in the House, except those who take the extreme view that there should be no change in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I would only repeat that this proposal is another stage forward in developing the dignity and status of the Scottish Grand Committee, if that needs developing at all, and that we are moving more and more to a really effective way of enabling Scottish Members to do their work in the House. I therefore hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, in line 23, to leave out "thirty" and to insert "fifty".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if hon. Members discuss with this Amendment the one in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) in line 26, leave out "twenty members" and insert
twenty-one members representing Scottish constituencies".

Mr. Lawson: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) I move the Amendment very shortly because the arguments in favour of it have already been advanced. The purpose of the two Amendments taken together is to so change the Scottish Committee that there would be a minimum of 50 Members to deal with minor Bills, with the normal number of 71 Scottish Members and the addition of extra non-Scottish Members to make up the balance of power as represented in the House. It would be better to have a smaller Committee of 50 Members. The purpose of the Amendment is quite frankly to achieve the minimum change possible by the reduction to 50. The case has already been argued and I do not propose to weary the House by repeating it.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I beg to second the Amendment. I support the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that we should make the minimum disturbance possible on the Scottish Grand Committee. With 50 Members and 21 added it would provide an opportunity for more Scottish Members to serve upon the Scottish Grand Committee to deal with appropriate Bills.
In the proposed Amendment to the Standing Orders, the phrase is used that the Committee of Selection in selecting Members for the Scottish Grand Committee shall pay a certain amount of attention to expert and qualified people in various directions serving on that Committee. It is amazing the number of experts that there are in the House. The Committee of Selection appointed one expert to a Committee. The hon. Member came to me and said that he had been put on the Committee but he knew nothing about the subject and he asked whether, as he understood that I knew a reasonable amount about it, I could give him advice as to what it was all about.
I am thinking of legislation introduced in the future based on a famous Report. The selection of experts to serve during the discussion of the Bill may be very embarrassing to those selecting and to those selected to serve. I hope that the Secretary of State will give consideration to increasing the numbers from 30 to 50.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: As has already been said, we have been over all this ground before, and so there is no need for me to elaborate what has already been said.
There is one remark that I think I should deal with. It is in respect of the figures of 30 to 50 which the Amendment would replace by 50 to 71. It was implied that there was a risk of only 30 Scottish Members being put on the Committee. That risk is so negligible as to be unthinkable. The Committee of Selection has a clear line from the terms of the Motion as to the qualifications that it should consider before appointing Members. It is clear that the intention of the Motion is that Scottish Members should be appointed wherever practicable consistent with the balance of parties in the House. The need to drop to the

figures of 30 to 50 arises from the fact that there are certain Bills which, while important, are not of major importance. There may be some Private Members' Bills which, while of interest and importance, are not such as to command the attendance of too many Members. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Where does the Motion say all the things that the right hon. Gentleman has now told us? I can see nothing limiting the power of the Committee of Selection to select 30 Members. The Motion says:
…the Committee shall consist of thirty members representing Scottish constituencies, who shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection in respect of each such bill and to whom the Committee of Selection shall have power to add…".
Clearly, the Committee equally has power not to add. Also, there is nothing to say that the additional Members should be Scots. The Motion merely says:
…the Committee of Selection shall have power to add not more than twenty members.
I am talking about what the Secretary of State said. He is not in the habit—he certainly has not been tonight—of addressing himself to Amendments, and so I hope I may be excused for answering what he said. The Amendment asks for the status quo, for which I have argued in the past, and which I should much have preferred. In our last debate I went out of my way to support the excellent suggestions put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure, and I very much regret that the time and effort spent by the Committee in trying to obtain a balance between the rights of Scottish Members and the needs of Government have been turned aside by the Government. I have not yet heard an argument from the Secretary of State why the Amendment should not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in line 24, to leave out from "Selection" to "to" in line 25.
Subsection (3) of the Standing Order will then read:
For the consideration of bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a standing committee or bills committed to the Scottish Standing Committee, the Committee shall consist of thirty members


representing Scottish constituencies, who shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection and to whom the Committee of Selection shall have power to add…
and so on.
That leaves out the words
in respect of each bill".
It will be noted that Standing Order No. 60 is to be amended in lines 11 and 16, and Standing Order No. 61 is to be amended in lines 9 and 12. Under the new procedure the Scottish Committee will be known as the Scottish Standing Committee. The suggestions about numbers, estimates and the two extra days refer to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Standing Order No. 59 relates to the Scottish Standing Committee. No Amendment is necessary because that is now the name. Standing Committees are established at the start of the Session when Members are selected to form the nucleus of a Standing Committee. The membership is printed and displayed in the corridors of the House. Additional Members may be added to a Standing Committee, but the actual Standing Committee is established and its membership is laid down and the Committee is a Standing Committee in the sense that it is appointed for the whole Session.
The Scottish Standing Committee is a queer bird. The only bird like it is the Phoenix, because the Scottish Standing Committee does not come into being until a Bill is sent to it, when a nucleus of 30 Members is formed by the Committee of Selection. After that, somehow or other up to 20 additional Members are then selected. When the Committee's consideration of the Bill is complete, the Committee goes out of existence, because at the moment the Standing Order says that the Committee Members shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection in respect of each Bill.
Do we have any Scottish Standing Committee after such a Committee has dealt with a Bill? Members are selected for a single Bill only. When by negligence of the Government in not moving a Motion to take the Committee stage of a Bill on the Floor of the House a Scottish Bill automatically goes to the Scottish Standing Committee, the fact is that there is no Scottish Standing Committee. It is only after a Bill is committed to a Scottish Standing Committee that its membership is selected.

Mr. Mackie: Like every other Standing Committee.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry if I am not speaking loudly enough for the hon. Member. He will find the names of Members of the Standing Committees displayed in the corridors of the House.

Mr. Mackie: Does the hon. Member suggest that in future Scottish Standing Committees will not occupy a similar position?

Mr. Ross: That may be possible because there is no nucleus. I will read the Standing Order to the hon. Member. It says:
For the consideration of bills certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a standing committee or bills committed to the Scottish Standing Committee, the Committee shall consist of thirty members representing Scottish constituencies, who shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection in respect of each such bill…
Until a Bill is sent to it, the Committee does not exist and the names cannot be printed. After the Committee has dealt with that Bill, the Committee goes out of existence; but a new Committee is called into existence when there is another Bill, because a Committee has to be nominated for each Bill.
Is it right to call it a Standing Committee? I should like to know exactly what the position will be. When there is not a Motion to take a Bill on the Floor of the House, it automatically goes to a Standing Committee. However, there are automatically Committees standing waiting—Standing Committees A, B, C, D, and so on. But there will be no Scottish Standing Committee. There will be a name.
I should like to know exactly how this proposal will be administered. I certainly think that is it illogical to call it the Scottish Standing Committee. We cannot call it a Scottish Sitting Committee because it will not sit. We have had a square-table conference about this, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm McPherson) and Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). We have been very definitely puzzled as to whether we should call it the Scottish Phœnix Committee or the Scottish Phantom Committee. It has Phœnix-like


qualities, but it has also chameleon-like qualities. It rises from the ashes, but also it changes its form.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am not sure whether the hon. Member said "fiends" or "Phoenix".

Mr. Ross: I did not think that my enunciation was so bad, but I should never label English Members of that Committee with the word "fiends". I should not describe his hon. Friends in that way. They have never behaved like that.
This matter calls for examination to find a suitable name for the Committee. I cannot understand how we can possibly accept that it is a Standing Committee when it does not stand. It has, in fact, no existence. I want to know exactly what the administrative machinery will be. We have a nucleus in relation to every other Standing Committee, but there is not a nucleus for the Scottish Standing Committee.
I know that the effect of my Amendment is to propose a nucleus of 30 Members, but frankly I do not want that. [Interruption.] I can understand the difficulty of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) about this matter. I have said before that my main purpose is to draw attention to the illogicality of naming this Committee the Scottish Standing Committee. I suggest that the Secretary of State should find some other way of describing this Committee. It is not comparable with any other Committee of the House. Standing Committees are made at the beginning of the Session, the names of the nucleus are printed and names are added thereto.
There is another point to which I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State. I suppose he will be concerned with this. When a Committee is formed a Motion has to be put down on the Order Paper. We have already heard tonight that there are many people concerned about the fact that they may not or will not be members of the Scottish Standing Committee. I think that there will be anything from 21 to 40 Scottish Members so affected. It may be fewer or it may be more.
The Committee of Selection, having first drawn up the nucleus and then the list of additional Members, will have to put a Motion on the Order Paper and

it will be open to Members to object that their names are not included. This has never been done in regard to the Scottish Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee consists automatically of every Scottish Member with additional Members, and the only thing in relation to this which appears on the Order Paper is whether one of the martyrs feels that it is time he should be released; and one added English Member comes off and some other woebegone newcomer is put on. Now, in the case of every Bill that goes before the Scottish Standing Committee, a new Committee has to be selected and a Motion must be presented to the House that certain Members be members of the Scottish Standing Committee—if we are still to call it the Standing Committee.
There are three things I want to know. What is to be the administration in relation to selection? Bills are to be sent to a Committee that does not exist, will not exist and cannot exist, until a Bill is committed to it. How a Bill can be committed to a Committee which does not exist is something I have not quite been able to understand; but that is what the Standing Order is intended to say. That is the stupidity of it.

Mr. Willis: Where is the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Ross: We want more than the Lord Advocate. We want the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General and the whole lot. Remember, the Home Office is involved. No wonder the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, the Home Secretary and the Lord High Panjandrum left after his few short flattering sentences to avoid the difficulties he has brought upon us.
Secondly, is it intended to continue to call this phantom Committee—I wish I could find all the names we suggested—

Mr. John Rankin: Are they in order?

Mr. Ross: Most of them would be in order. I have spoken about this strange creature with these chameleon-like propensities. Whatever it is, it is not a Standing Committee. Can we have some Scottish logic and get a better name for it?
Thirdly, what are to be the powers of hon. Members when the Committee is created and the names go on the Order


Paper, and have we the right to object? Let me remind the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) of something. I was reading once again the speech made by Lord Robert Cecil when Committees were revived in, I think, 1907. He made the point that he had been consistently making about the Scottish Grand Committee that people had to work somewhere else. Lord Robert Cecil made another argument—my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell has referred to it—that people get in the way of the official machine, the Whips.
It has been known that people are kept off Committees dealing with certain Bills. That is one of the dangers facing hon. Members opposite if they show particular activity concerning controversial Bills, whether it is, for example, the Rent Bill or the Local Government Bill. It is up to the Whips to recommend to the Committee of Selection which of them shall be put on a Committee to consider a Bill. If they are not kindly in their treatment of a Government Measure, the chances are that they will not be selected.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government have stopped Members on the Government side from serving on a Committee because they have been opposed to the Bill in question?

Mr. Ross: I am merely giving my hon. Friend the benefit of the experience of a distinguished Parliamentarian at the beginning of the century who said, from bitter experience in this House, that that is what is done by Governments.
I have not the slightest doubt that the same thing has happened and will happen regarding the Bill we discussed yesterday. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) who trounced the Bill yesterday will be a member of this Committee? I am perfectly sure that the Scottish Tory Whip will make sure that the hon. Member is one of those who is not selected. I am doing my best to get him selected by this speech, but we shall have to watch and see.
I wish to know whether the Committee of Selection has made its selection and whether the Government have thought of the difficulties in their way, not once a year, bit with every single Bill which comes to the Standing Committee, if objections are raised to the membership.

It would have been far better had the Government accepted our original Amendment regarding the Scottish Grand Committee having major Bills to consider and leaving the minor Bills to a Committee—hon. Members may call it what they like—now known as the Standing Committee.
I shall be interested in the explanations and defence of the Government by the Secretary of State about this phantom Committee. It is a Committee which is to be unknown, and which in fact is nonexistent until something is sent to it. It is a "Scottish Sputnik Committee" because it must exist in outer space, if not in this House, until such time as a Bill is committed to it. I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State defending this strange new Committee and the strange new name given to it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: Were this Amendment accepted, it would mean that a permanent Committee nucleus would be formed, which nobody wants. I understand from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that he does not want a permanent nucleus either and so I do not know why he put down the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know why I put down the Amendment. Surely he knows that the only way by which we may be permitted to talk about anything is to put down an Amendment?

Mr. Maclay: If the purpose of the Amendment is to talk about why the Committee is called by this name, I think it might have been much simpler had son-le other method been devised of notifying us of that intention; but I accept that this is a device which may be used to enable us to discuss the matter.
The hon. Member asked whether the Committee existed. It is provided for in Standing Orders and therefore it exists. If provision is also made for the membership to be altered for each Bill, that does not in any way detract from the existence of the Committee. The name is convenient and is understood. I think we must accept that, with all the imagination in the world, there could not be devised a more accurate name to describe the functions of this Committee.

Mr. Ross: When the right hon. Gentleman says the Committee exists, does he mean that it exists without members until a Bill comes before it. It has no members until then, and after the Bill has been dealt with it has no members. It continues to have no members until another Bill comes before it. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Committee exists, and has a right to be called a Standing Committee, when it has no members?

Mr. Maclay: I am convinced that if it appears in Standing Orders that there is a Scottish Standing Committee, then there it is. If that appears to be too metaphysical I will not take the matter further. I think that even the hon. Member would prefer that his Amendment should be withdrawn and I hope that all hon. Members will agree with him.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we appeal to you since this appears to be something about which we should be concerned in connection with procedure? Here is a Committee being set up with no members. Bills may be committed to it but it does not and will not exist until after a Bill has been committed to it. With your great knowledge of procedure, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to throw some light on this, or is it an absurd position in which we find ourselves?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a matter about which I can intervene. The House may deal with the matter as seems fit. The whole question is before the House.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: Surely the House will not be satisfied with the treatment which the Secretary of State for Scotland has just meted out to it? He has treated the House with contempt. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has posed a definite question to him, but he has made no attempt to answer it.
My hon. Friend pointed out the illogicality of the situation which is now being created in trying to constitute a Standing Committee. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that were advanced a fortnight ago when we were debating this issue in the House and when the parallel was put forward that this proposal would

be comparable, if not exactly the same, to a little Scottish Parliament which would, as is done in the House of Commons itself, refer Bills to a Standing Committee, and that this was a gain we should be getting.
Now that is shown to be not so much a "Sputnik" Committee as a "phutnik" Committee. The Secretary of State, having no defence to put up against the illogical position in which he is now landed, merely uttered a few sentences and sat down, hoping that the weight of the Government's majority would justify the contempt with which he was treating the House. My hon. Friend put forward a very sound case. This is not a Standing Committee.

Mr. Lawson: It should properly be called the non-Standing Committee.

Mr. Rankin: Yes.

Mr. Ross: Another name is suggested by what we have heard today, the "notional" Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Rankin: Children used in their play to sing, "Broken Bridge is Falling Down". The proposed Scottish Standing Committee will be like that bridge; as soon as it has completed its work it will be broken, and then it will fall down. The Secretary of State expects us to go on saying to ourselves. "The Committee is still standing". Some other Bill later on will be committed to this non-Standing, notional, falling-down Committee. This is one of the greatest pieces of codology—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is that?"] It is a new science, which the Secretary of State has been expounding tonight. [Interruption.] I am always glad to see the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) here, because he always uses two words when he comes. They are, "Hear, hear". I shall be glad to hear him expounding these matters during the debate. I shall not explain "codology", but I ask the Secretary of State to explain it, because he is becoming a master of the subject. If he listens to me now, or at least pretends that he does, in keeping with his other pretences, the Secretary of State will save himself a little bother, but he will not solve the problem.
I am glad that the Lord Advocate has arrived, but it would be more helpful if he sat beside the Secretary of State and held his hand, because his right hon.


Friend needs some support. We might then get legal enlightenment on the difficulty which has been created: when is a Standing Committee not a Standing Committee?
I suggest that the only honest thing which the Secretary of State can do tonight is to agree that the House should adjourn in order to give him an opportunity to present a defensible argument on behalf of an indefensible case. In order to do that he will have the valuable assistance of the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate's colleague is in a difficulty. We sympathise with him. That is why all these Amendments have been put down. They try to help him and let him see the error of his ways. If my two Amendments had been accepted, which unfortunately I could not be here to discuss at the time, there would have been no further difficulty in the matter, because the Scottish Grand Committee would just have been the Scottish Standing Committee, it would always have been in session; it would always have been in existence, and it would have consisted of seventy-one Scottish Members and, if the Committee of Selection thought fit, an added number of English Members in order to preserve the balance of representation in the House.
That would have saved the Secretary of State from the morass into which he has now fallen. I do not know why he ignores the helping hands which are offered to try to draw him out. Does he not intend to think up a more satisfying explanation of the situation which has been created, where, once we have finished with a Bill on the Scottish Standing Committee, that Committee ceases to exist, and then the Grand Committee at some future date meets, discusses the principle of a Bill and solemnly refers that Bill to a Committee which does not exist? That is a farce.
Of course, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), who is one of the keener intellects on the other side of the House, knows it to be farce. I am certain that if he did not realise that it is so he would be on his feet tonight supporting the Government, but he is keeping quiet because he knows that he could not say a word to justify this pantomime. This is the season of pantomime, but the Secretary of State is

making a very poor principal boy. Had it not been a pantomime I am certain that the hon. Member for Pollok would have been on his feet tonight in support of his Government. Not far away, ruminating and thinking about the matter, is an experienced right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot), who I am sure would have been defending the Secretary of State had he thought there was a case to defend. He has kept quiet, too. I can only conclude that they agree with that.
No case has been stated in reply to the arguments put by my hon. Friend, and I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should delay further proceedings in this matter. He can hold it up; he can wait and see. There is no great rush in the matter. There is no reason in the world why he should not find a way out of this illogical situation in which he is now placed, and I am sure it will help him to find a way out if he will just take a little more time and delay the present proceedings.

Mr. Ross: I am really shocked by the naive confidence of the Secretary of State in the infallibility of the Leader of the House. If something appears in Standing Orders, that is when it becomes logical and all right. That is just nonsense. I have no desire that the Amendment should be voted upon, because I was concerned with the illogicality of the proposal, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a little more thought to it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker rose—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Does this mean that my last Amendment is not selected?

Mr. Speaker: I did not propose to select that Amendment because I understood that it was to be discussed with the one before it. The point seems to me to be concerned with the same thing, but if the hon. Member can give me a case for discussing it, I will gladly reconsider the matter.

Mr. Ross: We have not yet discussed the question whether or not the added Members should all be Scottish Members or whether some of them should be English Members.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was dealt with on the Amendment we have disposed of. However, if the hon. Member cares to move his Amendment I have no strong feelings.

Mr. Ross: I would rather do so, if it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: I did not think it was desirable to call it. I thought the point had been covered, but if the hon. Member has a new point, he may move the Amendment.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in line 26, after the first "members" insert "representing Scottish constituencies".
We have had no opportunity of questioning the Secretary of State on what is proposed in regard to this. I am concerned because of the fact that we now have a smaller Committee, and it is quite unnecessary to have English Members added in order to make weight. I am perfectly sure that I have the support of every English hon. Member who has suffered the torture of silence on the Grand Committee and of all the others who have been terrified that they might still be sentenced for a term on the Scottish Grand Committee—

Mr. Walter Elliot: Certainly not.

Mr. Ross: The actual fact is that it has never been a matter of any joy to the Scottish Members to have amongst them people who, by unfortunate custom and tradition, seldom spoke. We would rather have had them assert their rights and express their views to the Committee. With a smaller Committee of 50—that is 30 plus 20—out of 71 Scottish Members, there is really no need in considering the matter of the balance of parties to have any English Members on the Committee at all now.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that be objects to Members representing English constituencies, or does he mean Members representing English constituencies who are Scotsmen serving on the Committee?

Mr. Ross: What I am concerned about is that we now have a limited Committee

instead of one that included Members for all Scottish constituencies. On major Bills it is of vital importance that Members for Scottish constituencies should be there. It is a hardship for any of them to be denied their right, but to be denied their right at the same time as they see English Members for English constituencies being placed on that Committee is indeed an affront, and something of which the Government, if they intend to have any English Members on this reduced Committee, should be thoroughly ashamed.
That is why I insist on raising this matter. At present, while Members of Scottish constituencies are being denied their rights, it may well be in the mind of the Government to put on the Scottish Grand Committee Members representing English constituencies who have no interest in Scottish affairs, who do not want to be on the Committee and who, by their presence, are keeping myself or some of my Scottish colleagues off the Committee. We have a right to know what the Government intend to do in this respect. That is why I am moving this Amendment.
This will mean that whether this reduced Committee is up to its total of 50, or is anywhere between 30 and 50, its Members shall consist of representatives of Scottish constituencies only.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I beg to support the Amendment. I am ready to admit that it is difficult to regard any business which is before the House or a Committee as being purely related to one part of the United Kingdom, but in the sense in which we regard the situation, I would say that if this Committee is to be reduced it is only reasonable to suggest that it should be entirely made up of Members representing Scottish constituencies. No business coming before the Scottish Grand Committee will have any direct interest for representatives of English constituencies.
It is reasonable to accept the Amendment. If the Committee is reduced to 30 or 50 Members it should be made up, in proportion to the respective strength of the parties in the House, entirely of Scottish Members, since it will be dealing with purely Scottish business.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart: I do not support the Amendment. I had the honour, if not the pleasure, to take the St. Andrews University Bill through the Scottish Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) was a graduate at that university, but he represented an English constituency. In my opinion, he was very well qualified to speak on the Bill. He had much more knowledge of the subject than many other Members of the Committee. It would be a very great mistake to lay down, as a hard and fast rule, that Members must always represent Scottish constituencies. I think that it is wise and right to leave the matter to the good sense of the Committee of Selection.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I want to add a word to what my right hon. Friend has just said. If the Amendment were carried I should be denied the right to sit on the Scottish Grand Committee to consider a Motion dealing with the Report and Accounts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

Mr. Ross: At present we are dealing with the Scottish Standing Committee and not the Scottish Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee will remain as at present, with added Members, who will be able to discuss the Estimates of Scottish Departments. The hon. Member's right is already protected.

Mr. Nabarro: My point is simply that there are certain activities and enterprises in Scotland which are of a United Kingdom character and which affect the nationalised industries.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. We are dealing with an Amendment relating to Bills of an exclusively Scottish character. Is the hon. Member right in his intervention?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is free to develop his arguments. It may be that he can show that he is right.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall show within a few seconds that I am exactly right in this matter.
In 1952, a Bill was brought before the House called the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Bill. The Second Reading was taken on the Floor. It was committed for the Committee stage to the

Scottish Grand Committee. That was a Bill which Scottish Members might consider of purely Scottish character, but I did not because it involved moneys provided under Treasury guarantee by the United Kingdom Treasury. I say that the Standing Committee to which we are now referring will be dealing in measure with United Kingdom matters and it would be wholly insupportable if English Members on appropriate occasions were denied the opportunity of sitting on that Committee.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: Surely the hon. Member should have been here to support the arguments which were advanced earlier about the numerical position.

Mr. Mackie: On a point of order. Has the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) asked leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) has spoken on this Question.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Ross: Is it right, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to make the assertion he has just made, in view of the fact that the Standing Orders refer to Bills certified by Mr. Speaker, and thus suggest that you did wrong?

Mr. Speaker: That point occurred to me, but I did not think it my duty to make it. I thought that some hon. Member would have had the ingenuity to argue that aspect. It is not for me to intervene every time I hear an argument that I may consider to be fallacious.

Mr. Rankin: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster does not realise how his intervention is inappropriate and puts the Secretary of State in a difficult position. He objects to the fact that an English Member may be excluded from this Committee—that is an English Member who has some claim to be on it. In that case how much greater is the injustice that is being dealt out by the hon. Member and his colleagues to Scottish Members, who will be prevented from being members of this Committee which deal exclusively with Scottish matters? The hon. Member for Kidderminster objects in respect of Englishmen. He should not wonder, therefore, that we as Scotsmen object with greater force


when in certain cases Scottish Members will be excluded, and in some cases the majority of Scottish Members excluded by his action and that of his Government in preventing all those Scottish Members who would like to serve on the Committee from being members of the Committee. Will the hon. Member now change his mind?

Mr. Nabarro: No.

Mr. Ross: Can we find out whether we shall have some enlightenment about what the Government propose? Have they nothing to say?

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: There has been such a confusion of argument that I do not know who was arguing what with whom, and I find it difficult to know with what I am expected to deal. We are back now at the original point as to why, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, there should be no possibility of adding any English or Welsh Members to this Committee.

Mr. Ross: I said that there should be no need.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member's Amendment will achieve a situation in which it would not be possible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), with his great experience of the Scottish Committee, has brought forward one extremely good reason for having a certain amount of flexibility in the powers of the Committee of Selection. There is another reason. It is conceivable that we could have such a party balance that it could be dealt with only by the addition of other hon. Members. These reasons are very valid ones for leaving the matter to the Committee of Selection, which will undoubtedly use its powers with its usual wisdom.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) was on the assumption of the inclusion of Members in the Scottish Grand Committee, but what we are now dealing with is the exclusion of Scottish Members from the Standing Committee. What I want to

know is whether the Secretary of State would prefer the addition to the Standing Committee of Members other than Scottish Members of the House. If he would, then that would reinforce the complaint which many of us on this side of the House have, that injustice is being done by the Government's proposal to amend the Standing Orders in this way.

Mr. Maclay: The balance of parties argument is very important, too, and we must leave some flexibility.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

[Standing Orders, as amended, to be printed. [No. 42.]

DEFENCE CONTRACTS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments authorising the use of patented inventions and registered designs for the services of the Crown in respect of articles required for defence and similar purposes by the Governments of allied or associated countries or the United Nations, and to make permanent provision with respect to the use for defence and similar purposes of other technical information protected by contractual arrangements, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase in the sums payable to patentees and other persons under the said enactments which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) amending those enactments in respect of the uses of inventions and designs which (apart from any period of emergency in force thereunder) may be made by or with the authority of a Government department;
(ii) providing for payments to be made' by Government departments in respect of the use or reproduction of models, documents and information in connection with the use of inventions and designs in pursuance of those enactments;
(b) of payments to be made by a competent authority (as defined by the said Act of the present Session) under provisions of that Act relating to the use of technical information (as so defined), being payments to persons entitled to the benefit of contractual and other restrictions or obligations affected by any authorisation given or treated as given by such an authority under those provisions.

Resolution agreed to.

SCRAP LEATHER (EXPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

10.32 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I desire to call to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade an anomaly which arises in the Board's Regulations relating to the export of vegetable tanned leather scrap and chrome leather scrap. I am raising this matter because of a constituency interest, but it is also, in my opinion, one of national importance.
Vegetable tanned leather scrap is waste material of the boot and shoe industry. Until a few years ago it was waste in the real sense of the word and most of it was burned. Now it is the raw material of a valuable, expanding and exporting industry, an industry which saves imports from having to be brought into this country, one of its chief manufacturers being a firm at Higham Ferrers in my constituency, W. W. Chamberlain. Ltd.
The scrap leather is processed into sheets of reconstituted leather fibre board. The leather fibre board is used in the fancy goods industry, but principally in the manufacture of components for the boot and shoe industry—in the manufacture of stiffeners, of insoles, middle soles and through soles in the boot and shoe industry and for bottom soles in slipper manufacture. This saves the import of leather which would otherwise have to be imported for the manufacture of these boot and shoe components.
In addition, it provides a valuable export trade, because these boot and shoe components which are used by our own industry are also exported to America, Canada, South Africa, and to the Continent, to be used by boot and shoe manufacturers in those countries in the same way as they are used by manufacturers here. There is, too, an extensive export trade to the same areas of the full-sized manufactured fibre board. The value of this export trade can be shown by the

fact that in the last year alone the exports by Messrs. Chamberlain, the firm in my constituency, were worth well over £100,000. Fifty per cent. of the exports were to America. The leather scrap from the boot and shoe industry in this country costs about £10 per ton. The manufactured fibre board is exported to America at £150-£175 per ton. What we are doing is exporting skill and process time to the tune of about £150 per ton.
Now I come to the real point, with which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal. Vegetable tanned leather scrap, which is the raw material of the new industry, is in short supply. Yet we allow purchasing agents from the Continent and elsewhere abroad to come and buy it here. Because vegetable tanned leather scrap is in short supply here and we allow it to be exported, Messrs. Chamberlain have to go to America to purchase scrap at £22-£25 per ton. The Board of Trade issues an import licence for it.
It is like "Alice in Wonderland". We have a thriving export industry with its raw material in short supply. We allow that raw material to be exported at about £10 per ton, and then we spend precious dollars in order to purchase inferior scrap from America at the rate of £22-£25 per ton.
There is a precedent for what I am about to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to. There is also chrome leather scrap, which is the raw material of the glue manufacturing industry. Because it has been in short supply, we have over a long period had restrictions on its export, and, therefore, the glue manufacturers have the advantage of their raw material being available to them in this country.
I have already raised the subject of the raw material for the new industry in correspondence with the Minister of State, the Board of Trade. On 28th October I received from him a very charming reply full of compliments about the excellent work and success of the firms engaged in this expanding industry. Tonight I ask for something more than compliments for the firms which are working under very great difficulties and are engaged in a very good export trade. They should be given


some practical help by the Board of Trade. I hope that the Board of Trade, knowing all the facts, will impose an export restriction on vegetable tanned leather scrap.

10.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has referred to the letter which my colleague at the Board of Trade sent to him and in which compliments were paid to the firm. Perhaps it is properly my turn to pay compliments to the hon. Member for the courteous and restrained way in which he has raised this matter which is of considerable importance to the firm. He has presented the matter to the House in very reasonable, but at the same time compelling tones.
Having listened to the hon. Member's most interesting speech, I suggest that there are three main points which I must answer. The first is that I must explain the policy of the Government towards export licensing controls. Secondly, I want to deal with the question of the hardship and difficulties which the Chamberlain company is experiencing in buying its raw materials for its Ferrersflex—which is the trade name given to this artificial raw material—through having to buy its raw materials at world prices. Thirdly, there is the point made by the hon. Member about the disparity in the treatment for the purpose of export licensing control of vegetable tanned leather scrap and chrome tanned leather scrap.
Since the end of the war, it has been the policy of successive Governments to abolish export restrictions as soon as possible, both because of the paramount importance of the export trade, and because of the advantage of removing as many obstacles as possible from the path of British exporters. Export licensing control is at present operated mainly to control the export of arms, munitions and other goods of strategic importance. In fact, there are very few export controls left.
In addition to the strategic controls, there are one or two others which I mention in passing to show how limited

the range is. There are controls maintained for balance of payment reasons on certain goods of high value, such as diamonds, to prevent the export of capital in the form of goods. Then there is the export control of important works of art to ensure that they remain in this country and, for humane reasons, there is export control on cattle and live horses.
Export licensing control is also maintained on ferrous and non-ferrous scrap and the reason for that is that the free international trade in ferrous and nonferrous scrap is distorted through the imposition by other Governments of export restrictions and taxes or import duties on the unwrought metals which do not also apply to the scrap. Export of some of these scraps would in any event have to be restricted under the strategic controls which I have mentioned.
The great majority of controls, imposed to conserve scarce materials, including dollar-costing materials, have already been removed and, for the reasons I have already given, the remaining supply controls are kept under constant review and are being abolished or reduced as quickly as circumstances will permit. To consider re-imposing such a raw material control is a step which we would contemplate only in the event of very difficult circumstances. That is our general policy of export controls, particularly those relating to raw materials.
I now turn to the history of the company, and it would not be out of place to repeat some of the compliments already paid to a company which has shown great initiative and enterprise. It has developed an entirely new line which has caught on, which is a valuable export and which has been using up scrap material from other manufactures. Having said that, I remind the House that the company has done very well for itself as well as for everybody else.

Mr. Lindgren: That is why it is in business.

Mr. Erroll: Certainly, and I am very glad to be able to place on record the success story of this company. I have been studying the Stock Exchange Year Book and, as this is a public company, I shall not give anything away which is not publicly available. The company was floated only some eleven years ago and yet its ordinary share capital has since been increased by 50 per cent. by two


successive issues of bonus shares, one in March, 1954, and the second in July, 1955. This increase in the capital has not affected the rate of dividend, which was maintained at 30 per cent. from 1947–48 to 1952–53 and has been maintained at 35 per cent. since then on the increased capital. Those who got in on the "ground floor" have made a very good investment indeed.
As I say, one must commend the enterprise of the company in producing Ferrersflex, which is such a useful material for many purposes and which is in such strong demand abroad. I should like to say again that the export trade of the company is most valuable, and I confirm the figures quoted by the hon. Member. At the same time, we must remember what the company is getting for this material, and I do not think that any extravagant claims for meeting the so-called hardship would be justified in this case.
As the hon. Member quoted, the company is selling the finished product at about £150-£175 per ton to the U.S.A., f.o.b. British ports, and is paying only something like £10-£12 per ton for its raw material—

Mr. Lindgren: In this country.

Mr. Errol: —in this country—so that there is really no case for imposing export controls to conserve the supply of scrap for this one firm. To do so would certainly be completely counter to the policy I have outlined.
It is said by the hon. Member that the material is in short supply. I wonder whether that is really the case. What is happening is that the scrap which is generated in this country is moving into world markets and the people who have the scrap are receiving world prices in return. It may be that the firm has had to import scrap from America temporarily because it did not want to be short of it from English supplies. It is no hardship, I feel, for the firm to be paying world prices. If it is currently paying £20 per ton from the United States, it would surely be far better off to pay, say, £15 a ton to the British producers of scrap, who would then be quite happy to sell to Chamberlain's rather than export it to the Continent at about £12 per ton.
It is just possible that the person responsible for buying the scrap on behalf of Chamberlain's was squeezed, in that he thought he would go on paying very little for his scrap and then the scrap suppliers found that they could get better prices on the Continent. As a result of the ensuing shortage, a panic importation of inferior American scrap had to be made. That is speculation on my part, because I was not aware of this point until the hon. Gentleman raised it, but I would hazard a guess that that is the proper explanation of the apparent absurdity of exporting scrap at £10 per ton and having to import it from America at £21 per ton.
Even if there is such a shortage, and even if it is necessary to import scrap at £21 per ton, a handsome profit is being made on this imported raw material, because it is being sent back to America at between £150 and £175 per ton; so it would still be worth while importing a little dollar scrap to increase the output of this valuable export material.
One other factor which, I am sure, the hon. Member will appreciate is that the company is virtually the only firm in England using the vegetable tanned leather scrap. If we were to impose an export licensing control, it would mean that the home market for such scrap would be limited to only one substantial purchaser, and any advantage which that purchaser—the firm mentioned by the hon. Member—obtained from the control would, therefore, inevitably be at the expense of the tanners, the footwear manufacturers and the makers of leather goods in this country, who would be getting lower prices for their scrap than they could otherwise obtain. They surely are entitled to world prices for their scrap and it is no hardship in this case for Chamberlain's to buy their raw material at world prices in the same way as most other manufacturers in this country have to do.
There is one final point, the disparity of treatment between vegetable tanned leather scrap and chrome tanned leather scrap. I do not think it may be assumed that the export licensing control on chrome tanned leather scrap will remain for ever, particularly in view of what I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. We are studying the position carefully, and that control will be removed at the


appropriate time together with the control on the export of other glue-making materials. I hope that, when the constituents of the hon. Gentleman have had an opportunity to study my remarks, they will agree that, in present circum-

stances, there is no case for the Government to reimpose the export control which the hon. Gentleman desires.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.